Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that briefer supplementary questions and much briefer ministerial replies to supplementary questions have been a great blessing in recent days.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Falkland Islands

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the gross national product of the Falkland Islands for the years 1974, 1975 and 1976; and what is his estimate for the current year.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): The gross national product of the Falkland Islands was £2·307 million for 1974 and £2·768 for 1975. No figures are available for 1976 or 1977. The colony lacks a statistics department and maintains only the basic statistics essential for taxation and cost of living purposes. Lord Shackleton's Economic Survey of the Falkland Islands gives the gross national product figures from 1965 to 1974. The 1975 figure is based on a projection of these figures. It would be misleading to project these figures further.

Mr. Hutchison: Does the Minister agree that the gross national product is not really static in the Falklands and that the greatest enemy to their future progress is the political uncertainty? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is need for diversification, and the extension of the airfield? Will he do his best to bring these things about?

Mr. Rowlands: The question of the islands' economy being static was a matter for reference in Lord Shackleton's report. It was he who in that report drew attention to the static nature of the economy. The greatest difficulty or bar to the development of the islands' economy is the dispute that exists between ourselves and the Argentine Government.

Mr. Corbett: Does my hon. Friend accept that one way to underwrite the assurances already given by Her Majesty's Government that no change will be made in the status of the Falklands without their consent and agreement would be for the Government to examine again ways in which they will enable the islands to get on with some of the developments that they want to carry out?

Mr. Rowlands: We are getting on with the job of trying to ascertain which development projects can be got off the ground within the islands. The much broader issue of resources around the islands is subject to economic cooperation with the Argentine Government.

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on policy towards the continued independence of the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Rowlands: The Falkland Islands are not independent but are a United Kingdom dependent territory. There is no demand at present from their population of 1,950 people for independence.

Mr. Stewart: Does the Minister confirm having received a message from the new Legislative Council that it is opposed to any change in its present status? Does he accept that if there is any suggestion of making any change during negotiations with Argentina in the face of opposition from the people of the islands, it would be totally resisted by hon. Members in every party in the House and by people in every part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rowlands: I think that we have given full and adequate assurances, repeatedly, in the last few months that we will not bring anything to this House which is not acceptable to the islanders themselves.

Mr. Jay: Do I understand my hon. Friend now to have given the simple


undertaking that there will be no change in the constitutional status of the islands without the consent of the people there?

Mr. Rowlands: I have repeated it over and over again. We will not bring anything to this House—this is the firm assurance I have given—which is not acceptable to the islanders themselves.

Sir Bernard Braine: In spite of that, the House continues to be mystified. Why are the Government negotiating at all with a Fascist-type dictatorhip about the future of a democratic British community? How does the Minister square that with his very proper decision not to extend economic aid to Bolivia, which has an identical régime? Does he share the concern so properly and firmly demonstrated by the United States over the continued violation of human rights in Argentina?

Mr. Rowlands: On the first part of the question, we are negotiating because, following my visit to the islands and by agreement with the islands council, it was decided that it was necessary to have negotiations on the economic and sovereignty issues. Otherwise we would let the stalemate of the position of the islands continue, and that would be a much worse prospect for the islanders themselves.

Mr. Grocott: Whether we are talking about the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, or any of the remaining small dependent territories of the Commonwealth, is it not important for the Government to have serious long-term strategy for them all, so that we at least have some idea of what we intend for their future?

Mr. Rowlands: Yes. I agree that there is a need for a comprehensive strategy towards all our remaining dependent territories, although each of them presents us with different problems. We have been working on this, and the process of accelerated decolonisation, where that is the wish of the people in those territories, is the basis of that policy.

Mr. Luce: May I welcome the Minister's reaffirmation of the fact that there will be no change in the sovereignty of the islands without the full consent of the islanders? Will the Government now give and demonstrate a

proper commitment to the islanders by undertaking a full range of investment and development projects along the lines of the Shackleton Report?

Mr. Rowlands: We are endeavouring to do just that. A number of development projects are already in hand. One of the most important areas is in internal communications. Road building is now under active consideration, along with the whole question of the air services. In a number of areas, therefore, we are trying to implement the Shackleton Report.

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will seek a declaration from the International Court at The Hague that Argentina has no valid claim in international law to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Rowlands: No. Sir. In the absence of acceptance by Argentina of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the Court would not entertain an application by the United Kingdom for such a declaration.

Mr. Thorpe: I thank the Minister for that information, of which I was already aware. Will he confirm that Argentina has not accepted that part of the Hague Convention whereby it agreed to be bound by the decision of the International Court? Does this not shed some light on its lack of competence in international law in laying claim to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands? May we take it that the question of sovereignty is not a matter that the Minister regards as being for negotiation in his New York meetings later this month?

Mr. Rowlands: On the first part of the question, yes, that is the position. On the second part, I cannot say what the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to say. Sovereignty has been part and parcel of the terms of reference of the negotiations and will therefore be subject to negotiation in New York.

Mr. James Johnson: In view of the long-standing dispute with the Argentinian people on this matter, does the Minister think that a halfway house, or even a beginning house, could be joint efforts in commercial activities with the hope of better understanding each other?


What is my hon. Friend doing about the joint Anglo-Argentinian effort on deep-sea fishing, for example, or on sea-bed exploration for oil?

Mr. Rowlands: These very issues are an intrinsic and integral part of the whole negotiations. They are not just about sovereignty they are about the whole issue of political and economic cooperation between Britain, Argentina and the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Surely it is time the Government Front Bench realised the growing economic and strategic importance of the Falkland Islands and dependencies. The only way that we can strengthen this situation is by putting in the proper investment and implementing the Shackleton Report. Until then, the Government are hithering and havering and riving a series of ambiguous, totally disingenuous and unsatisfactory answers on this issue.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) made a statement rather than ask a question. If everyone did that, it would be agony.

Mr. David Young: Will the Minister confirm that the Falkland Islands are insistent on maintaining links with Britain? Will the British Government maintain at all times their sovereignty over those islands unless a referendum indicates otherwise? Will he further see what economic co-operation can take place between Argentina and the Falkland Islands?

Mr. Rowlands: That is exactly what the negotiations are about. They are about the form of economic co-operation between Britain, the Falkland Islands and Argentina. Sovereignty issues are also involved. I repeat yet again that we shall not bring any proposals to the House unless they are acceptable to the islanders.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is the Minister aware of the widespread opinion that the British Government would give away the Falkland Islands if the House of Commons did not constantly stop them? Will he cease exercising this pressure on the people of the Falkland Islands to accord with the defeatism of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

Mr. Rowlands: The hon. and learned Gentleman does a grave injustice and disservice to the islanders. They are a determined and resilient people and they will not be bullied by Ministers or the House. The negotiations are those that were arranged and agreed with the island councillors when I met them earlier in the year.

Chile

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is prepared to make it his policy to institute an economic boycott of Chile.

Mr. Rowlands: The Government continue to keep all aspects of United Kingdom-Chile relations under review, but they do not believe that an economic boycott would be an appropriate or effective way of achieving the stated objectives of British policy.

Mr. Thorne: I welcome recent statements on Chile by the Secretary of State, but is it possible to assure the House that there will be no more military equipment spare parts exported to Chile in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Rowlands: We have terminated any arms sales to Chile. We have been fulfilling only the existing contracts that we are obliged to fulfil.

Mr. McCrindle: Is it not clear that the Government's policy towards Chile has led to static trade between the two countries, whereas trade between Chile and some of our EEC partners, especially West Germany, is booming? Will the hon. Gentleman estimate against how many countries we should have to impose an economic boycott if we applied the criterion of disagreement with their Governments?

Mr. Rowlands: We do not plan to have an economic boycott on Chile. The trade figures with Chile are not bad. They have not gone down badly in the past year or two, despite our strong stance on this issue.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that deep disgust has been felt at the statement made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) about Chile, which is a brutal


dictatorship and which the hon Gentleman conveyed as a democracy? Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations on his recent statement that our stance is even more determined on Chile than it has ever been so far? Does he agree—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Every question that I ask is always too long for the Opposition. It is an honour with which I shall have to out up Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing of a military nature should go to Chile to uphold its ferocious régime?

Mr. McCrindle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the fact that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) did not convey to me his intention to attack me in the House, may I say, through you, that if the hon. Gentleman can produce any statement that I have made to the effect that the present Chilean régime is a democracy I shall publicly apologise?

Mr. Flannery: Splendid. It is quite evident that Chile is not a democracy by any standards, and does not even begin to approach one.

Gibraltar

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his negotiations in Strasbourg on 24th November with the Spanish Foreign Minister on the future of Gibraltar.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): My discussions on Gibraltar with the Spanish Foreign Minister. Sr. Oreja, in which the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Gibraltar House of Assembly, Mr. Maurice Xiberras, took part, were held in a friendly, co-operative and constructive atmosphere. We have agreed to hold a further such meeting in the new year.

Mr. van Straubenzee: During the discussions—as the right hon. Gentleman says, the Spanish Foreign Minister was strengthened by the presence of Sir Joshua Hassan and Mr. Maurice Xiberras—was the right hon. Gentleman able to convey to the Spanish Foreign Minister the fact that far from being a sign of weakness, especially in the new atmosphere in Spain.

the lifting of frontier restrictions and restrictions against British subjects would be a sign of strength and would do more than anything to make meaningful negotiations possible?

Dr. Owen: The Spanish Government are under no illusion about the Government's position on this matter, in that if they were to show a gesture of reconciliation and friendship by lifting restrictions I believe that that would encourage good relations between the Gibraltarians and the Spanish people.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that his stand on behalf of the Gibraltarians will be as firm and on the same principles as the stand declared on behalf of the people of the Falkland Islands?

Dr. Owen: Yes. I think the problems are different, and they need to be seen as such. I believe that the British Government's attitude in Gibraltar is that we will agree to anything that the Gibraltarians agree to, and we have explained that in many other parts of the world. We are trying to encourage a dialogue to eradicate some of the misunderstandings and suspicions that have existed for so many years.

Mr. Kershaw: Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind in any negotiations the desirability of using Gibraltar for a BBC radio transmitter?

Dr. Owen: I shall certainly consider that.

Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement about progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty.

Dr. Owen: There has been good progress in the tripartite negotiations. The Government welcomed President Brezhnev's statement of 2nd November. The negotiations resumed on 5th December and we are seeking progress on the outstanding issues, so as to achieve a lasting comprehensive test ban treaty.

Mr. Forman: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the main outstanding problems are those of adequate verification of these tests and the wider participation by nations such as France and


China, which will eventually have to be brought into the discussions? On the Soviet offer, which the Government welcome, does the Foreign Secretary not believe that it is now seen to be a little hollow, since it is evident that the Soviet Union was not planning to hold peaceful nuclear explosions for the three-year period in any case?

Dr. Owen: When I was in Moscow, Mr. Gromyko put very strongly to me the Soviet wish to have PNEs, and it has been a long-standing Soviet position that they need to have such explosions. I do not, therefore, think that I can agree with the hon. Member. This was a significant step forward for the Soviet Union. On the other part of the hon. Gentleman's question, verification is one of the central problems still to be resolved, and that will obviously be the subject of negotiation. As to the participation of other nuclear weapon States, that is a matter for them, but it is desirable that the agreement covers all nuclear weapon States.

Mr. James Lamond: In his statement on 2nd November Mr. Brezhnev also suggested that the Soviet Union was ready to reach agreement about a simultaneous halt in the production of nuclear weapons by all States. Has my right hon. Friend any comment to make on that proposal?

Dr. Owen: We remain ready to enter into any negotiations on our overall objective of comprehensive disarmament, and the cessation of new weapons systems would be extremely helpful. But this is very difficult to achieve and one must adopt a piecemeal approach, starting with a comprehensive test ban treaty.

Overseas Representation (CPRS Report)

Mr. Goodlad: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on the report of the Central Policy Review Staff on overseas representation.

Dr. Owen: I have received representations and advice from the institutions reviewed in the report and from their staffs and from a large number of individuals and other bodies in the fields of industry, commerce, the academic world,

the arts, and the Church, as well as from members of the public, both in this country and overseas. A notable contribution to the continuing debate was made in another place on 23rd November.

Mr. Goodlad: Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern that is felt because some of the much-criticised recommendations in that report are already being put into effect? Can he say which of those recommendations are being put into effect? Is it the Government's intention to interfere with the overseas service of the BBC?

Dr. Owen: We have deliberately not made decisions on the report, which is now being considered by the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee. We are listening to all views on this matter. One of the recommendations, to which I think the hon. Member referred, is one of the issues that are being examined. I am not yet in a position to announce any decision. I want to take account of the Sub-Committee's view before I make a decision.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to confirm the figure in the report which shows that its preferred solution would be about 54 per cent. more expensive than the existing set-up?

Dr. Owen: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to one aspect of the report which would have a consequential cost because of the merging of the separate Diplomatic Service and the Home Service in the initial period. That is an aspect that must be considered.

Sir Anthony Royle: Is the Secretary of State aware that this whole exercise has been a total waste of public money? Is he aware of any other country that has a more efficient or effective Diplomatic Service than our own?

Dr. Owen: No, I am not aware of such a country.

Rhodesia

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement regarding Rhodesia.

Dr. Owen: The Rhodesian incursion into Mozambique and the security situation within Rhodesia emphasise the


urgent need for a negotiated settlement. The United States Government and ourselves remain convinced that our joint proposals provide the basic framework of a settlement. I shall be discussing the situation with the United States Secretary of State later this week.

Mr. Molloy: In view of President Kaunda's statement yesterday and bearing in mind his fear that if elections take place before independence civil strife will result, will my right hon. Friend make urgent efforts to contact President Kaunda, who has a great contribution to make? Will he assure President Kaunda that his apprehensions will be fully considered at any future conferences?

Dr. Owen: I understand President Kaunda's apprehensions, but I remain absolutely convinced that the only way to settle this dispute between differing nationalist leaders is to have an election. I respect and admire President Kaunda and I much regret that some of my re-remarks have caused ill feeling. That is not reciprocated in any way by me. If he reads my statement he will see that it is a very balanced statement on the issues.

Mr. Amery: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, regrettably or otherwise, the Anglo-American proposals in the form presented to the different African Governments—white and black—are now in ruins? There is now a breathing space. The question is whether he is to double the stakes on a losing game or stand back and see what progress can be made with the Rhodesian régime and those African leaders who are at present in Rhodesia and whether any agreement that they might reach would or would not be acceptable to this House.

Dr. Owen: The issues are complex. There is a choice between continuing the arms fight or negotiating a settlement. The principles that have been laid down will be those on which any negotiated settlement must be based. How that is to be achieved is for history to decide. The Anglo-American initiatives are as they are. I do not believe that they can be written off as easily as the right hon. Gentleman implies.

Mr. Ioan Evans: What action is my right hon. Friend considering with the Americans to bring pressure to bear on South Africa? Does he not agree that South Africa remains the key to the Rhodesia problem and that it would be ended in a week if South Africa stopped supporting the régime?

Dr. Owen: I have never hidden the fact that I believe that South Africa is of great importance, as are the front-line Presidents. South Africa would help us even more than it has done over the last few months if it were convinced that a negotiated settlement would be viable, that there would be fair elections, and that law and order would be maintained. That is an issue on which there are still. regrettably, considerable differences of opinion.

Mr. John Davies: Does the Secretary of State realise that the absolute adherence that he pays to his own initiative can be very counter-productive? Does he further realise that there is every advantage in seeking to bring all those concerned within Rhodesia into negotiations? In all those concerned I include the representatives of the Patriotic Front. Could the Secretary of State not use his influence with them and with President Kaunda to ensure that the genuine initiative that he took with Mr. Smith is the principal vehicle towards a settlement?

Dr. Owen: I have no amour propre or pride of ownership on this issue. The principles of international acceptance and of fair and free elections are fundamental. I do not believe that this can be achieved if negotiations are narrowed down to involve only the nationalist leaders inside Rhodesia. The Patriotic Front must be involved and negotiations must be set in a climate that the world will accept.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you accept that when the Foreign Secretary, or anyone else, speaks in French he should do so properly?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Secretary of State will be glad to come to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for advice.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about his efforts to achieve a settlement in Rhodesia.

Dr. Owen: I have recently held discussions in London with representatives of Bishop Muzorewa as well as with the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole. Later this month, I hope to see Mr. Nkomo. We shall continue our efforts to achieve a political settlement. Independence must involve a genuine transfer of power to Government representing the majority of the people following free and fair elections based on universal adult suffrage.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In spite of seeing Mr. Nkomo, does the right hon. Gentleman's franglaisian reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) mean that he is beginning to repent his masochistic obsession with the Patriotic Front? If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to help, will he at least refrain from hindering Mr. Smith and other Rhodesian leaders in seeking a solution from the ballaot box rather than through the barrel of a gun? Is there anything wrong with self-determination for Rhodesia?

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman's expression "masochistic obsession" typifies the sort of abuse that seems to come out of everyone on this issue. I am pursuing the path of peace, and I will continue to do so, no matter where the criticism comes from. I shall not stand in the way of any initiative from any quarter which contributes to a genuine peace initiative.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there can be no transfer of power or a settlement of the problems of Zimbabwe without the full-hearted co-operation and consent of the Patriotic Front? Does he further accept that unless and until Her Majesty's Government are willing to take action on oil sanctions in order to prevent oil from reaching that country, there is no possibility of any transfer of power by the Smith régime?

Dr. Owen: As my hon. Friend knows, I have always held the view that the Patriotic Front is a crucial element in any negotiated settlement. It is hard to see any settlement from which it was

deliberately excluded being successful. The armed struggle would merely continue. Equally, I make it clear that if there is to be a negotiated settlement there must be compromise. No party to the discussions can hold a total veto over the others if there is to be a peaceful negotiated settlement.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the front-line Presidents that, while they have a legitimate interest in the future of Rhodesia, they cannot expect to have a veto on any settlement that might be acceptable to the black and white communities in Rhodesia?

Dr. Owen: I have said often in this House that no party in this situation can have a veto if we are to get compromise and a negotiated setttlement. The frontline Presidents are of crucial importance, as South Africa is. They are the parties in the situation who can sustain the continued armed struggle from either side. Therefore, we must take full account of their responsible statesmanship. The front-line Presidents have been of crucial help over the last few months, as, indeed, has South Africa. At the moment, because of differences of opinion, we are a long way from reaching the necessary compromise for a settlement.

Mr. Whitehead: When my right hon. Friend sees Mr. Nkomo, will he use his best endeavours to persuade him that the Patriotic Front should commit itself to an election before independence, because that is the best guarantee that it has not only of being able to share in power peacefully in Zimbabwe but also of avoiding civil war?

Dr. Owen: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I shall continue to say what I have said to the Patriotic Front on numerous occasions—that elections hold the key to resolving the issue of who should be president and who should form the Government of the new Zimbabwe. It must be for those who wish to live in a free and independent Zimbabwe to make that choice.

Middle East

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's attitude on


progress towards a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.

Mr. Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the Middle East.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the Middle East situation.

Dr. Owen: The Government have welcomed President Sadat's bold initiative in visiting Jerusalem. We hope that the meeting summoned by President Sadat in Cairo will carry forward preparations for a peace conference involving all the parties. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I discussed the full range of Middle East problems with Mr. Begin during his recent visit.

Mr. Walters: Since it is impossible to achieve peace in the Middle East without resolving the Palestinian issue, did the Foreign Secretary obtain from Mr. Begin, during his visit, assurances that he will respond to President Sadat's initiative and make the necessary territorial concessions on the West Bank?

Dr. Owen: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech made by Mr. Begin on Sunday evening, which referred to some of these issues.

Mr. Aitken: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only territorial response from Israel since President Sadat's visit has been the creation of six new settlements on the West Bank? Will Her Majesty's Government use their influence to encourage from Israel a far more constructive approach to the process of peace-making?

Dr. Owen: I do not think that anyone who followed the progress of the talks that took place on Saturday and Sunday in London between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Mr. Begin can have any doubt of the constructive contribution that we are attempting to make to a solution of this complex and difficult problem.

Mr. Goodhart: As the right hon. Gentleman seems so content with Soviet policy in southern Africa, what has he

to say about the fact that the efficient Soviet propaganda machine seems intent on attempting to sabotage President Sadat's courageous and inspiring initiative in the Middle East?

Dr. Owen: I am not certain that I agree with the preamble to that supplementary question. As far as the Middle East is concerned, I believe that there is advantage in getting back to Geneva. I think that that should still be our objective as part of comprehensive negotiations. I believe that there are advantages in the two co-chairmen playing a responsive and responsible rôle in the negotiations.

Mr. Corbett: While my right hon. Friend is involved in helping towards a settlement of the wider issues in the Middle East, will he give an undertaking that he will not forget—I am sure that he will not want to do so—the bitter problem of Cyprus? What are the prospects of a resumption of the inter-communal talks there?

Dr. Owen: I share my hon. Friend's concern about that troubled island, but until the presidential election takes place in February it will be difficult to take any new step forward in intercommunal talks. I am studying the issue very closely.

Mr. Dykes: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, as he himself implied, Mr. Begin has already clearly referred to the Palestinian cause and suggested that there can be negotiations along those lines? Does not that contrast with the deplorable and negative attitude of the other Arab States towards President Sadat's initiative? Will the right hon. Gentleman say something further about that?

Dr. Owen: I would prefer the Arab world to remain united and to negotiate from a united front. There would be advantage in that. But those who are genuinely seeking peace in the Middle East cannot constantly be held down by the inability of one section to agree. We must surely all work for unity in the moderate Arab approach which has been amply demonstrated in the last few months during the period of the various initiatives taken by the United States Government.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it correct that a vast new supply of arms to Egypt from Britain is under consideration? Secondly, in order to protect the fragile peace in the Middle East, will my right hon. Friend prevent the supply of all British arms to either side in order to avoid the Middle East becoming a tinder box?

Dr. Owen: The cardinal principle, which is difficult to apply, in deciding on arms shipments to the Middle East is that one should not, by a particular shipment, upset the balance of power and alter the ratios. The United Kingdom has tried to avoid doing that under successive Governments. I know of no massive shipment of arms, but we have traditionally, for many years, been arms suppliers to Egypt.

Mr. John Davies: May I revert to the speech made by Mr. Begin on Sunday? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that Mr. Begin's allusion to his preparedness to negotiate with true representatives of the Palestinian Arab people represented a very important statement? As, unfortunately, owing to Mr. Begin's illness, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. White-law) and I were unable to see him yesterday, can the Foreign Secretary tell us anything further as a result of the discussions that he himself had on this very salient issue for the future?

Dr. Owen: I think that the fact that in his speech Mr. Begin made reference to the Palestinian Arabs owes a lot to the discussions that took place between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and him. It was, of course, on that issue that a lot of the discussion was bound to concentrate. The fact that Mr. Begin came out of the meetings and made his statement is testimony to the progress made during the discussions.

Departmental Staff

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conveniently available figures he has for the number of officials of his Department born in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): Officials employed by my

right hon. Friend's Department are drawn from every region. But in selecting them we are not influenced by their places of birth, provided they meet the usual nationality requirements. Figures showing how many were born in Scotland are not available except at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend will acquit me of asking for things at disproportionate cost, since my Question asks for "conveniently available figures". Will the Government reflect, over the coming months, on whether they might not produce an objective study of the costs and other ramifications of devolution and the effects on the British Diplomatic Service—in particular, the costs of representation of a separate Scottish State in the Nine and elsewhere, not excluding the costs of a Scottish embassy or high commission here in London?

Mr. Luard: As a former member of the Diplomatic Service, I assure my hon. Friend that there is no shortage of Scottish people at every level. They are present in alarming numbers already. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be a total disaster for the United Kingdom and, indeed, for Scotland to break up the Diplomatic Service. I am convinced that the great majority of the Scottish people realise that they have far more influence by Scots being able to occupy important positions within the United Kingdom Diplomatic Service than if there were an independent Scotland.

Mr. Henderson: We welcome the Minister's information that there will be enough members of the Civil Service of Scottish origin to occupy the Scottish Foreign Office within the next few years. Will the Minister assure his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that, despite all his efforts, there is no possibility of his being appointed our first High Commissioner in London?

Mr. Luard: I do not think that anybody in the House has ever doubted the availability of gifted Scottish people, but what many of us believe is that they are better devoted to helping the United Kingdom Government to pursue the interests of Scotland as well as of England than they are in trying to represent an independent Scotland.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Political Co-operation

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet his colleagues in the other member States of the EEC to discuss the development of political co-operation.

Dr. Owen: The next political co-operation ministerial meeting is to be held in Copenhagen, under the Danish Presidency. on 13th and 14th February 1978.

Mr. Dykes: In the context of the overall development of political co-operation, was the Foreign Secretary upset that the French Government apparently prevented the issuance of the united statement on the Middle East at the time of President Sadat's visit to Israel?

Dr. Owen: The President of the Council tried to get a Presidency statement on the Saturday, I think it was, but it proved impossible to achieve unanimity. But we, in fact, agreed a statement which was helpful when the Council of Foreign Ministers met on the Tuesday following. I was very happy to have a statement on the Saturday and equally happy to have one on the Tuesday.

Mr. Skinner: When my right hon. Friend meets his colleagues in the Common Market, will he also tell them that the hon. Gentleman who tabled this Question about political co-operation in Europe—the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)—was the same man who was acting as a go-between between the Common Market Commission and the Tory Party Central Office in an attempt to undermine Britain's oil revenues? Will he tell his colleagues that we are not having any of that?

Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to point out two things. First, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not indicate to me in advance that he would be raising this matter. Secondly, and even more important, the Secretary of State for Energy made a totally false allegation, which I hope he will withdraw, on something that he has misconstrued, and he has not yet apologised for it.

Dr. Owen: I will only say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that before I go to the next political co-operation meeting I shall try to improve my French.

European Parliament and United Kingdom Parliament

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will raise in the Council of Ministers the future adequacy of co-ordination between the European Parliament and the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): The question of the relationship between the European Assembly and this Parliament is primarily a matter for the two institutions themselves, which both may wish to reconsider after direct elections. I doubt whether the Council of Ministers can assist at this stage. The British Government have made plain in this House and elsewhere their position on the powers of the European Assembly.

Mr. Viggers: Does the Minister agree that his answer adds up to the fact that nobody knows so far how co-ordination will work? What leads him to think that the European Members of Parliament will be the exception to the general rule that capable and ambitious people tend to seek to maximise their power and influence?

Mr. Judd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we debated this very point at some length the other night. I remain convinced, together with colleagues, that the main accountability of the European Assembly will be through Ministers to this House, and this House will, therefore, continue to attract maximum talent.

Mr. Spearing: Is not the position quite clear? Does not my hon. Friend agree with the statement of the former Commissioner, now Lord Thomson, in the Lloyds Bank Review last July, when he said that from the moment of direct elections the new European Assemblymen will cease to be colleagues of Members of this House and, instead, become rivals? Is not that clear and is it not also clear that this House and this Parliament have no part in the written constitution under the Treaty of Rome?

Mr. Judd: But I am sure that my hon. Friend will also agree that, as we discussed the other night at some length and on other occasions, the functions of the European Assembly are in no way to be compared with the legislative functions of the House. I do not believe that the sort of person who is interested in a legislative role will be attracted to the European Assembly in the same way as people will continue to be attracted to this House.

Mr. Marten: Can we once and for all rule out the dotty suggestion that Members of the directly elected European Assembly, if any, should be Members of the House of Lords?

Mr. Judd: We are to discuss later, in the context of the Bill now before the House, what methods of election are to be used. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will put his views forward very forcefully then, and they will be dealt with by the Government.

Mr. Jay: If my hon. Friend thinks that the main avenue of accountability would be through the Council of Ministers to this House, what is the point of direct elections?

Mr. Judd: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that on many occasions many of us in the House have said that, wherever public bodies exist, it is better that the people who belong to them should be elected rather than that they should be appointed indirectly.

Mr. Hurd: Developing that point, may ask whether The Times was accurate this morning in its account of what the Foreign Secretary said at the Summit Conference about the direct elections Bill? If it was accurate, was this not a very deeply partisan and misleading statement? Would it not be better to correct it now by acknowledging that in recent weeks, and again this week, the obstacle to progress with the Bill has nothing whatever to do with the electoral system but is simply the continuing refusal by the Government to provide adequate days for discussion?

Mr. Judd: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not so. He knows very well that if the House decides to opt for the regional list system there is every reason

to believe that the date that has been set as the target will be met.

President of the Commission

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the President of the EEC Commission.

Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend expects to meet Mr. Jenkins, the President of the EEC Commission, at the Council of Ministers meeting on 19th and 20th December.

Mr. Crawford: As Mr. Jenkins' colleague, Industry Commissioner Davignon, has said that there should be no cutback in the steel industry in the EEC, why are the Government decimating the steel industry in Scotland?

Mr. Judd: The Government are faced, as are all Governments with steel industries in the countries for which they are responsible, with a major international steel crisis. In tackling that crisis, the present Government have very high in their order of priorities the protection of the interests of individuals and communities that are dependent on the industry.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: When the Foreign Secretary meets the President, will he advise him of standard Civil Service practice, namely, not to criticise the Ministers of the component Governments, not to take part in controversial public debate, and to remember that the members of the Commission are the servants and not the bosses of the EEC?

Mr. Judd: I think that it is well understood that the present Government believe very deeply that the main political responsibility for the life of the Community lies with Governments and the politicians within those Governments.

Mr. Biffen: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the President of the Commission, will he inquire from him what rôle the Commission sees for itself in making available European funds for fighting the Strasbourg elections, and will he ensure that this House is fully apprised of the Commission's views on how that money is to be allocated?

Mr. Judd: Obviously the management of elections is an important and sensitive


issue. We shall want to be very satisfied, just as we would in the context of elections in our own country, that this has been handled with all appropriate propriety and that no arrangements are being made about which any of us, on either side of the House, would be unhappy or suspicious.

Enlargement

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposed enlargement of the EEC.

Dr. Owen: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister's letter to the General Secretary of the Labour Party, published in the Official Report on 22nd November.

Mr. Marten: While being basically in favour of enlargement, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that the percentage of workers in agriculture in the countries that one hopes will join is 36 per cent. in Greece, 28 per cent. in Portugal and 23 per cent. in Spain? As compared with the British percentage of only 3 per cent. of workers in agriculture, will not that really heavily tip the advantage in favour of the vested interests in agriculture in the Common Market to the detriment of the United Kingdom?

Dr. Owen: It certainly would if one were to follow into Mediterranean agricultural products the same policy that exists predominantly for northern agricultural products. Therefore, it is the British Government's strong intention to resist any such increase, which could shift the agricultural budget from its present 70 per cent. of overall Community budget up to over 90 per cent.

Mr. Ioan Evans: As 70 per cent. of the budget is already going to agriculture, does my right hon. Friend agree that we shall have to abandon the CAP before we consider bringing in countries such as Greece, Spain or Portugal?

Dr. Owen: There is not quite such a well developed CAP for Mediterranean products. I do not believe that we can exclude doing something about Mediterranean agricultural products, but the price of doing so must be one of making changes in the rest of the CAP. That

is why we attach such great importance to radical changes.

Mr. Townsend: What link, if any, does the right hon. Gentleman see between early settlement of the Cyprus dispute and the proposed enlargement of the Community?

Dr. Owen: Not very much. I do not think that the Cyprus dispute is in any way connected with the EEC. Good relations with some countries, such as Greece, which is an applicant to join, are important, but I do not think that anything can replace a better dialogue between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots.

Mr. Roper: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the considerable political advantages of enlargement, particularly by strengthening democracy in southern Europe?

Dr. Owen: Yes, Sir. I think that that is one of the central objectives and why one is prepared to pay a limited but reasonable economic price for enlargement. That price is to be carefully calculated, but the whole concept of the European Community is above all political.

Reform

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in explaining to the other member States of the EEC the propositions for reform set out in the Prime Minister's letter to the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party.

Dr. Owen: Copies were sent out to our eight partners in the Community and the issues raised have been discussed on frequent occasions since then.

Mr. Gould: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to avert misunderstandings, both here and in the EEC, about our seriousness of purpose in achieving these reforms, it is important that we should put forward specific proposals as quickly as possible? When might we expect that to happen?

Dr. Owen: The most important thing is that we should negotiate against the background of firm, well-worked-out policies. Changing the common agricultural policy will not be done overnight,


but one needs to know where one is aiming to be in three or four years' time if one is to achieve sensible reforms in the day-to-day negotiations that go on throughout the Community. We are fundamentally in negotiations the whole time in doing Community business.

Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman make plain to all the Ministers in the EEC that the British Government are wholly opposed to any progress towards economic and monetary union and that, indeed, economic and monetary union in the EEC is wholly inconsistent with control by the British people of their own economic affairs?

Dr. Owen: That is too simple a presentation of a very complex problem. There is no doubt that the divergence of the economies of the Community of the Nine is not in the interests of Britain or of the whole Community and that ways of achieving, sensibly and step by step, over time, a greater convergence of the economies of the Community, is a thoroughly beneficial policy, which we shall support.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the ways in which the reforms outlined in the Prime Minister's letter may be pushed through the Community much more rapidly is to have the closest possible contact with other Socialist and Social Democratic Parties in Europe? Will he press the Labour Party International Committee and the National Executive to work in the closest possible way with sister parties in Europe to achieve those ends?

Dr. Owen: I certainly believe that political relations across countries are a very important force which can be harnessed to the good of national interests as well as the political beliefs of the various parties. The Socialist grouping in the European Community and the European Assembly is very strong—in fact, the majority grouping. Therefore, I would welcome these changes.

Mr. Watt: Will the proposals for reform include a proposal for reform of the common fisheries policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to our Danish partners that unless they stop forthwith their wasteful industrial fishing

methods there will be no fish stocks left for any of the partners in the EEC?

Dr. Owen: My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland have been battling for reform of the common fisheries policy for some months. That preceded the Prime Minister's letter. It is a central plank of our policy that we wish to have reforms in the common fisheries policy.

Common Policies

Mr. Warren: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with the President of the EEC Commission what actions need to be taken by member States to further common policies of the Community.

Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend already has frequent occasions to discuss Community policies with Mr. Roy Jenkins; for example at EEC Council meetings when the development of specific common Community policies is under review.

Mr. Warren: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why, when the British Parliament sits for longer than any other Community Parliament, we find it impossible to find time to debate major common Community issues, such as the aerospace policy for the Common Market, which has been outstanding for debate in this country for more than two years?

Mr. Judd: There arc, of course, big problems of time in this House, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as was brought out in debate the other night, the Government are looking seriously and urgently at the whole issue of improving the method of scrutiny to make sure that hon. Members throughout the House have an opportunity to monitor in more detail what is going on in the Community.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it the Government's general intention that the members of the EEC should keep in step in regard to a common foreign policy? When will the Government come into step with the West German Government, which recently decided not to provide export


credit guarantees for companies which trade with South Africa?

Mr. Judd: Political co-operation is a very important part of the life of the Community. Naturally, on crucial issues facing us all it is better to achieve more progress working together than to posture independently as individual countries and fail to achieve effective common action. There are many ideas to be exchanged. As my right hon. Friend has already indicated this afternoon, in southern African policy we are constantly updating the appropriate action that we can take together.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the hon. Gentleman bring home to the EEC that the common agricultural policy is quantitatively so large a part of the totality of common policies that it cannot be based on the distortions inherent in an artificial rate of the green pound?

Mr. Judd: One of the matters which give me a great deal of anxiety is that if the credibility of the financing of the Community is to be maintained we must look very seriously at the proportion of the budget taken up by the common agricultural policy.

Direct Elections

Mrs. Bain: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with relevant EEC bodies about the proposed timetable for direct elections to the European Parliament.

Mr. Judd: The Council of Ministers has reviewed the progress of legislation in the member States but there has been no discussion of any change in the proposed timetable. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will refer in his statement to discussions at the European Council on 5th and 6th December.

Mrs. Bain: Will the Minister make clear that he will try to come up with a valid reason for the slippage appearing in the United Kingdom timetable, and will he say whether he has told our European partners that he has said that this is due to internal Labour Party disputes or opposition by both the Labour Government and the Tory Opposition to the concept of proportional representation?

Mr. Judd: As I have already said in answer to a previous question, whether

we meet the target date is very much in the hands of every hon. Member. If there is a decision to accept the Government's recommendation of a regional list system, there is no reason why we should not meet the target date next summer.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no real internal Labour Party dispute on the question of direct elections? The Labour Party, as such, is opposed to direct elections. There may well be people in the House who support them, but that is not the party in the country. Is my hon. Friend also aware that the National Executive of the party and its so-called International Committee have not accepted the manifesto from our European partners, because it is federalist in concept? As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs indicated that he was opposed to federalism, I should like to know where we stand.

Sir Anthony Boyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to have to listen to an internal Labour Party dispute throughout the afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: It is always interesting.

Mr. Judd: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that we are well aware of the position of the Labour Party and its National Executive. On the federal point, not only my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it plain that we are not committed to the concept of a federal Europe.

Sir Frederic Bennett: On the basis of the last question, does the Minister agree that there are one or two other problems standing in the way of rapid progress towards free elections in Europe, other than the method of election? Are we not now the odd man out in being the only country that has not completed the necessary legislative process to hold the elections next year?

Mr. Judd: We are not the only odd man out; I still maintain that the method of election has a great deal to do with whether we meet the target date.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that the people of this country are not all that passionately interested in direct


elections or anything to do with them? Is he further aware that they are gravely disappointed that many of the things promised at the time of the referendum have not come true, that they were cheated, and that it would be to the benefit of the Commission if it concentrated on trying to reduce European unemployment instead of messing about with ideas of federalism or any form of direct elections?

Mr. Judd: I certainly endorse the point inherent in my hon. Friend's question, which is that in the final analysis the way in which the Community will be judged will not be by theological discussions about institutions and structures but by the policies which do or do not come out of it in the interests of the ordinary men, women and children who make up the member countries of the Community.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I realise that the Government probably wanted to avoid Question No. 14, in view of the comments of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) and the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) yesterday, may I ask for guidance on grouping, because Questions Nos. 9 and 11 appear to be almost identical, and it would have saved time and made for much better debate if the Minister had advised you that he would prefer to take them together.

Mr. Speaker: The grouping of Questions has nothing to do with me; it has to do with Ministers.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (SUMMIT)

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I will, with permission, make a statement on the meeting of the European Council in Brussels on 5th and 6th December, which I attended together with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
The Council began with an exchange of views on the current economic problems of Europe, including those caused by the low rates of growth in the econo

mies of the member countries, and the high unemployment that exists throughout the Community.
I directed attention to the problems of international trade and payments and pressed for a co-ordinated Community response to them. The persistent deficits of many countries, which are the counterpart of the massive surpluses of some OPEC countries and Japan, are exerting deflationary pressure on the economies of the world and making it harder to pull the Community out of recession and reduce unemployment. This situation is increasing protectionist pressure in the United States as well as in the Community. The Community needs to take a position.
There was wide support for this assessment, and that future stability in oil prices would also be very helpful. The Council equally recognised the need for energy-saving policies. The President of the Commission was invited to intensify his consultations with the Japanese Government on these matters.
The question of budget contributions in 1978 and 1979 was resolved. We maintained our opposition to any change in our interpretation of Article 131 of the Treaty of Accession. In consequence, we and others will maintain our different interpretations of the article, and will pay accordingly. The resulting budgetary deficit will be filled by a contribution from all the member countries according to their own choice of one of four approved methods. If there is still a very small residual gap, it will be dealt with by Finance Ministers.
The contribution of the United Kingdom towards filling the gap is likely in 1978 to be £40·6 million out of the deficit of £265 million. In 1979 both the deficit and the United Kingdom contribution should be only about a third of those figures. On the basis of this agreement the Community will now construct its budgets from 1st January next on the basis of the new European unit of account.
The Council agreed to renew the Regional Development Fund with substantially increased resources totalling 1,850 million European units of account for the next three years. The combined effect of these increased resources and of the change to the use of the European unit of account is that the value of the


Fund in sterling terms will be more than doubled. The net value to the United Kingdom and the benefit to the regions, including Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, will thus be increased. We retain about 27 per cent. of the Fund.
Approval was given in principle to a proposal by the Commission to establish a new borrowing facility of 1,000 million units of account to promote investment and support sectoral policies in the Community. This facility will be managed by the European Investment Bank.
The President of the Commission called for a re-examination of the ideas for instituting at some time in the future economic and monetary union. There was a general disposition to await the views of Finance Ministers on the Commission's suggestions before the European Council attempted to form a view.
The European Council took note of the current situation on direct elections.
It was agreed in principle to establish a European Foundation to promote contacts within the Community. Foreign Ministers will examine the proposals for a foundation, and report back to the European Council.
During the meeting the Council considered certain ideas for closer co-operation against terrorism, and discussed current international problems, particularly those of Africa and the Middle East. I took the opportunity to inform my colleagues of the wide-ranging discussions which I had with Mr. Begin at the weekend. During these Mr. Begin assured me of his determination to seek a comprehensive settlement and to find a just solution to the problem of the Palestinians. I informed Mr. Begin of the Government's support for continuing discussions on this basis between Egypt and Israel, leading at a later date to wider negotiations and a settlement.

Mrs. Thatcher: I assume that there will be a separate statement on fisheries policy, because the Agriculture Ministers were meeting on Monday and Tuesday. I should like confirmation that there will be a separate statement. I shall confine my points to the Prime Minister to three.
First, the Prime Minister said that the Council discussed the economic situa

tion. Is it true that there was very considerable difference of view about how to tackle inflation and growth, and that those countries that have been most successful at tackling inflation were very loth indeed to risk the gains they had made by putting them in jeopardy if they reflated?
Secondly, the statement makes no reference to steel. Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us would find it very difficult to believe that the Ministers did not discuss steel, in view of the seriousness of the situation here and elsewhere? As the position is governed by treaties of the Community, will he say whether there is anything to report on steel negotiations?
Thirdly, with regard to the rather trite phrase that "The European Council took note of the current situation on direct elections", did the Council take note of the fact that, in the week of the Summit, the Government provided no days at all here for debating Europe, and that only 132 out of 308 Labour Members voted for direct elections, compared with 229 out of 280 Conservative Members? That shows the whole difference in attitude towards Europe. Is it the Prime Minister's intention to provide time for a genuine free choice on electoral systems before Christmas?

The Prime Minister: The Agriculture Ministers were meeting concurrently and therefore the Heads of Government did not discuss fisheries policy. I shall certainly have a word with the Minister of Agriculture about making a statement.
It has been a standing view of the Germans that they do not wish to be pushed into reflation if it is likely to endanger their monetary stability. At the same time, I think that the German Government, like other Governments, are becoming increasingly concerned about the rise in unemployment in their countries and the failure of their economies to grow, despite a low inflation level. I think that there was perhaps more of a meeting of minds on this occasion than on others. One of the interesting ideas which came forward and which I think will meet with a lot of support from my hon. Friends—

Mr. Skinner: Does that include us?

The Prime Minister: On this occasion yes. While we all want to see growth in the manufacturing sector and in the service sector, there is more that we may have to do in the public employment field in order to provide both services and work. We have not heard this view expressed quite so clearly before among a number of those who were present.
I raised the matter of steel, of course, because there are very direct interests here, but the discussions are going on separately. We reached no conclusion. Indeed, this is not a subject on which it would be possible for the Heads of Government to reach a conclusion, although the issues are extremely serious.
On direct elections, I notice that the right hon. Lady is constantly attempting to ensure that we are saddled with the responsibility for the delay. [Interruption.] Well, I am not denying it, so I do not see why hon. Members have to push it so hard. [Interruption.] The Opposition are so anxious to get a clear verdict on this. I have consulted the Leader of the House and, while I do not want to anticipate anything that he might have to say, I have a feeling that all hon. Gentleman on the Conservative Benches will have a chance of proving their virility before Christmas.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Prime Minister agree that the most important part of the discussions was what he calls "pulling the Community out of recession and reducing unemployment"? If, as he claims, the Council agreed with his assesssment, is he able to tell us any more about what action it agreed might be taken?
Can he confirm or repudiate the suggestion that appeared in the Press that he and the Foreign Secretary appear to have abandoned all prospect of meeting the deadline on direct elections?

The Prime Minister: No. I shall be interested to see how the voting goes when the issue comes up. If the House takes a decision before Christmas, that in itself will decide on what date the elections can be held. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Opposition Members should not be so sensitive about this. They will have a chance of taking a decision, although I am not sure that they are so keen about taking a decision now that we are coming up to it.
On the question of recession, the line to be pursued here—it is not the only line but it is a most important line—is that we are endeavouring to ensure that the discussions that have taken place between the United States and Japan are not concerned wholly with the relationship between those two great countries. The Community has a position on this, because the growth of the Japanese surplus is undoubtedly having a debilitating effect on the growth of economies elsewhere. I want to see these discussions broadened out as widely as possible.
No immediate conclusion can be drawn, but I asked the President of the Commission either to visit Japan—he probably will not do so, because he was there a few weeks ago—or perhaps to invite the Japanese to come to Brussels to discuss these matters more closely.

Mr. Noble: While discussing international trade did my right hon. Friend raise the question of the renegotiation of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement? Does he accept that there is some satisfaction about the renegotiation but grave concern about the transitional arrangements? If he did not raise it, will he take an early opportunity to raise the question of the transitional arrangement with his European partners?

The Prime Minister: This matter did not come up yesterday, but the Secretary of State for Trade is discussing these matters continuously and urgently with his colleagues in the European Community.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Is the Prime Minister in a position to say anything about the proposal that part of the resources of the Regional Development Fund are now to be applied directly by the Commission outside the national quota arrangement? When dealing with direct elections, did he explain to his colleagues that on the only day of the Committee proceedings so far, Ministers did not appear interested in making any progress with the legislation and Government business managers made no attempt to seek to close the prolonged debates largely maintained by Labour Back Benchers?

The Prime Minister: I have always understood that on matters of this sort it is out of order to discuss what happens


on current debates or current Bills, whether at Question Time or following statements. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. The non-quota possibility arising out of the Fund was touched upon, but was not agreed. It has been left to the Finance Ministers or the Foreign Ministers to consider. In any case, it will only be a small proportion of the total Fund.

Mr. Stoddart: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in the Financial Times on 3rd December indicating that the German Finance Minister expects British oil resources to be drawn into the Community? Did he tell the Council of Ministers that United Kingdom oil resources would remain under the control of the United Kingdom and that all financial benefits would accrue to this country? If he did not do so, will he do so now?

The Prime Minister: No emphasis is added by constantly reiterating a position that is well known. I did not actually see the report in the Financial Times, but I do not always believe all that I see, even in such a responsible and authoritative paper as that, especially when, as on this occasion, I was present at the meeting and know what was said.

Mr. Tapsell: Was there discussion by the Council of Ministers of the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 124 of the Treaty of Accession and Article 67 of the Treaty of Rome to make certain specific liberalisations in exchange control before 1st January next year? Is it the Government's intention to honour those obligations or to apply for a further derogation?

The Prime Minister: The matter was not raised.

Mr. Tapsell: What about derogation?

The Prime Minister: Since the matter was not raised at the Council, I cannot answer that question.

Mr. Jay: While I welcome the Prime Minister's success in limiting in some way the size of the United Kingdom budget contribution, can he confirm that, nevertheless, this year's contribution of about £700 million will rise by £400 million to over £1,100 million next year?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give the figures in total, but perhaps if my right hon. Friend puts down a Question he will get an answer. The actual increase in the United Kingdom's contribution to the budget will be £40 million out of a total deficit of £265 million. That £40 million will have to be added on to the contribution that we have already agreed.

Mr. Walters: Bearing in mind the enormous importance of the Middle East to the economic position of Europe and its economic future, did the Prime Minister take the opportunity of denying reports that he had been nudged by Mr. Begin into accepting that the EEC should take a less active rôle in the Middle East affairs?

The Prime Minister: No. I would not altogether deny that. Mr. Begin took the view—I have some sympathy with it—that at the present stage of direct discussions—now that for the first time the contestants have been brought face to face—it would be better if Europe adopted what in transatlantic terms is a supportive rôle rather than coming out with a solution of its own. That seemed to make a lot of sense. I put it to my European colleagues that we should not advocate solutions but should urge both parties into a proper negotiating position. I would certainly not press the Community to come out with more public statements. I conveyed that to my colleagues and I hope that the House will agree.

Mr. Watkinson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he detects a weakening in the resolve of the German Government to expand their economy since the Downing Street Summit? Will he continue to press as diplomatically as possible upon the German Government the necessity for them to lead an expansion in Europe if we are to move out of recession? Can he also indicate what the attitude of the United Kingdom Government is to economic and monetary union? Is it still one of opposition?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the German Government's resolve has changed, but I do not think that they had the success that they hoped for during the Downing Street Summit in May. Indeed, getting growth in the economy is a problem that is baffling all the members of the Community. I


am bound to say—I hope that it will not be taken amiss—that this country is going to have a bigger improvement in its rate of growth next year than any other member of the Community, partly because of the success of the economic policy and partly because of North Sea oil.
My hon. Friend is right about having to proceed with some diplomacy in these matters, because we are concerning ourselves with the sovereign rights of another country. The German Chancellor understands our position on this and he has explained his position very clearly. I am quite certain that he would like to see a faster rate of growth if he can get it. I am sure that he and his Government will be working as hard as possible to get that and to reduce unemployment in Germany as, indeed, we all wish to see it reduced in France, Britain and elsewhere.
With regard to the economic and monetary union, I adopted the position that we have continuously adopted, namely, "Show me". Let us see how this new system can be of benefit to the United Kingdom in its recession as well as to Europe. I hope that it can be something more than another centralising unit. But so far I have not been able to see the relationship between the two. It is for the Commission and others who advocate this view to come forward and demonstrate this to us, if they can. If I were shown that this would be to the great advantage of the United Kingdom, we would want to look at it. So far, however, we have not seen that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: May I seek the help of the House? If hon. Members will limit themselves to one supplementary question each, that will enable me to call more of them. We are taking time out of a debate covered by a timetable motion.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Adhering to your advice, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister this question? In dealing with the Middle East, did he discuss the Cyprus problem, and is he willing to undertake an initiative in response to the letter and request of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House for an initiative to try at least to go towards a solution of the problem?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We did not discuss Cyprus on this occasion. As regards the second part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, I refer him to the earlier answer that I gave.

Mr. Roper: Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about the 1,000 million units of account borrowing facility? Will this be lent to member States over a fixed period, or is it a revolving fund?

The Prime Minister: There is no time limit on the Fund. It will be handled by the European Investment Bank and it can be used for infrastructure as well as for direct investment in manufacturing and other industry.

Mr. Spearing: A few moments ago my right hon. Friend was optimistic about reaching some conclusion before Christmas on voting methods. Is he aware that the Committee is discussing only "Clause 1 stand part" and that it has only just started that discussion? Will he understand that his optimism will be interpreted as meaning that we shall have two days next week? Can he go further and tell us whether it will be a procedural motion or a two-day debate next week?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot answer any of those questions.

Mr. Crawford: May I bring the Prime Minister back to the question of steel, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)? Did the Prime Minister meet Industry Commissioner Davignon? Since Industry Commissioner Davignon said that there should be an increase in investment in the steel industry in the EEC, why are the right hon. Gentlemen's Government decimating the steel industry in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I did not meet Commissioner Davignon.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision to increase the size of the Regional Fund will be welcomed in areas such as my own in the Northern Region? Can he say to what extent the United Kingdom will benefit from this proposal?

The Prime Minister: We have contributed about 21 per cent. to the Fund and we get back about 27 per cent. The


net help to us will be about £30 million a year—perhaps £100 million over the three years.

Mr. Marten: As the Prime Minister discussed direct elections and as amendments on the subject which I wish to raise are out of order on the Bill before the House, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the position about the pay and allowances of any directly elected Members? Is it for the Council of Ministers to decide the rate, or is it for the Assembly itself to do so? Certainly the Community is dragging its feet on this, and I am sure that no one on the Opposition Benches will vote for the Third Reading of the Bill unless we know the pay and allowances that are proposed.

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will table a Question on the subject. We did not discuss it yesterday.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it premature to ask my right hon. Friend to enlarge upon what he said about some European rôle in the public services employment sector?

The Prime Minister: I cannot enlarge on that. It was one of the ideas which emerged from the discussion, but it was not made more concrete.

Mr. George Gardiner: When members of the Council were taking note of progress on direct elections, did the Prime Minister point out to them that the system proposed by the Government in the Bill was by no means inviolate and that, even if the House of Commons voted to accept a system of proportional representation, there was still considerable scope for argument about whether the economic planning regions provide the best basis for that and that, at the end of the day, in terms of the speed of implementation, there may not be very much difference between the systems proposed?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I did not point that out.

Mr. Flannery: When my right hon. Friend reported to his colleagues in Europe his discusions with Mr. Begin, was he able to convey to them that withdrawal from the occupied territories and a homeland for the Palestinians were essential prerequisites to achieving peace

in the Middle East, because that is the only way in which we shall attain it?

The Prime Minister: The discussions with Mr. Begin, which I reported, were of great assistance to me in understanding the developments. For the first time, I found myself discussing with the responsible Israeli Prime Minister matters of substance instead of matters of procedure. I do not think that it would be helpful—indeed, it would not be proper—if I were to go into details about the nature of his approach to this problem. What is important now is that the two principal countries are meeting face to face and that we should encourage them to go on discussing these matters privately.
I have explained to Prime Minister Begin the view of Her Majesty's Government on these issues, and I am sure he will take that into account. I think that Mr. Begin and President Sadat, with whom I also had contact last week, will ensure that whatever discussions they have can be enlarged into a wider grouping of Arab States so that a comprehensive peace agreement can eventually be signed.

Mr. Crouch: Much as we admire the Prime Minister's achievements on the current economic problems of Europe, the Regional Development Fund and the budget achievement, is he aware that many Opposition Members are concerned at his failure to live up to the great traditions of British Prime Ministers to extend democracy in Europe and that, if anyone is dragging his feet today, it is the Prime Minister on this question of achieving direct elections next year?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) always tries to be a fair controversialist, I know. As regards direct elections, there have been great difficulties in this country and in the governing party. Everyone understands that. I have the responsibility of trying to ensure that we observe our obligations to Europe and that I do not divide my own party and allow in the Opposition. That is a perfectly understandable position—

Mr. Skinner: A national objective.

The Prime Minister: —as well as being a national objective! I agree with my hon. Friend. In pursuance of that, I seriously invite those of my hon. Friends


who are opposed to this to allow us to reach a conclusion on this matter—

Mr. Skinner: In the national interest as well.

The Prime Minister: I have given a lot on this, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has to give something, too. I think that we shall be able to reach a conclusion on this matter before Christmas. I understand that this is the prospect. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Member for Canterbury will not think too badly of me.

Mr. MacFarquhar: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting some generous concessions on the budget from our European partners. If his hopes of getting a resolution of the direct elections question are not borne out and there is little prospect of having them next year, will that mean that the other countries will go ahead, anyway, or will the remaining eight countries wait for us?

The Prime Minister: I understand that France especially would not want to go ahead unless we were there also. So I think that the consequence will be that, if we cannot meet the date, the elections will be postponed to 1979. I have said before and I repeat that that will not be the end of the world. After all, the Six waited for many years before we joined. It is now 20 years since the Community was established. I cannot believe that it will make all that difference if it is 21 years. What is important is that we should carry out these procedures properly. There is no great enthusiasm for European elections in any part of the country. What I think we have to do is to ensure, therefore, that there is a proper procedure and that the matter is properly carried through so that no one can complain at the end of the day that decisions were wrongly arrived at. But we have got to carry it through. We have all entered into an agreement to do so, and we must do so.

Mr. Rost: The Prime Minister referred to the discussions on energy conservation. When do the Government intend to bring forward some initiative so that we can do as much as is happening in Europe to pursue such policies?

The Prime Minister: It is an important question which is concerning the Government at present. I hope that over the next few months leading up to and perhaps including the budget some such measures may come forward. The Government have a series of propositions, and they have embarked upon a study of them.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that gone are the days when Prime Ministers came back to this House from Europe talking about the grand European design, with all the polished phrases and flourishes? Is not it significant that my right hon. Friend has nothing to offer and that all that he has been able to bring back is the demand for another payment to the Common Market? Is not it now apparent that only a large section of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House can stand up for the majority of the British people who are against the Common Market and want ultimately to get out of it?

The Prime Minister: That is the repetition of a well-known argument with which I totally disagree. One day, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover occupies this Dispatch Box, as I do, and he joins with his fellow Heads of Government in discussing these matters he will find that there is great advantage both politically in the Community arriving at a common approach to many significant world problems and—as he knows in his heart but will never acknowledge—in the growing interdependence of our economies, which makes it much more satisfactory that we should handle matters in this way. On one point I go along with my hon. Friend—I am against the harmonising of affairs in the Community for its own sake. The EEC must prove to me that harmonisation is worth while. If it does, I am there. If not, I am almost as bad as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, but not quite.

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the two hon. Members who have been rising throughout.

Mr. Adley: I agree with the importance of concentrating on major matters. In view of the difficulties which the EEC experiences in resolving major issues where there are conflicting interests, did the Prime Minister discuss the future of


Europe's aerospace industry? If not, will he agree that there is a need for Heads of State to take the lead and form a plan to produce and maintain a European aerospace industry?

The Prime Minister: We did not discuss that and therefore I cannot add to what has been said in reply to Questions that have been put down. I agree that it is an important matter, but I do not know whether the Heads of Government meeting is the right arena for its discussion.

Mr. Newens: Can my right hon. Friend say how far it is now accepted that there can be no permanent solution to the Middle East problem without recognition of the national aspirations of the Palestinian people? What attitude is now being taken towards the Palestinian Liberation Organisation? Is there recognition that some representative voice of the Palestinians must be heard and must be present at any permanent peace conference?

The Prime Minister: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a significant sentence that was inserted in Prime Minister Begin's speech on Sunday night about the position of the Palestinian Arabs. I do not wish to go further than that at present. He recognises the need for discussion.
I have made clear our position on the PLO. While it fails to recognise the existence of Israel and to deny that existence, I do not see how we can have dealings with it.

POLISH SHIPBUILDING ORDERS

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The disclosure that the Polish ships deal will cost the taxpayer £85 million, and the need for an immediate statement by Ministers on the financial arrangements.
I submit that this has become a specific matter because of the disclosures in the newspapers this morning. It is extremely

important, partly because of the very large quantity of money which appears to be involved, and because of the extremely disadvantageous nature of the contract that that was fixed up. It makes the recent scandal over the Crown Agents seem like a vicarage tea-party.
The matter is urgent because speculation is rife about the Government's action in relation to this deal. We must have the facts. The facts were promised in another place some months ago, but the Government are refusing to disclose them, despite all their protestations about open government.
This is an intolerable situation because it leaves the House of Commons out of the control of its own financial arrangements for matters such as this. It leaves the Government unaccountable for what they have done in this shameful transaction. It threatens the jobs of thousands of British seamen who will be forced to go out of business if the ships are ever built.
The matter is of such scandalous and serious proportions that the Government must be brought to book. I request you, Mr. Speaker, to grant an early opportunity to debate this matter and for the Government to answer to the House about what they have done.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
The disclosure that the Polish ships deal will cost the taxpayer £85 million, and the need for an immediate statement by Ministers on the financial arrangements.
The House knows that I do not have to decide on the importance of an issue. I am limited to the narrow question whether the business should take precedence over that set down for today or tomorrow.
I have taken into account everything that the hon. Member has said, but I have to rule that the hon. Member's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILLS PRESENTED

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION

Mr. Ted Fletcher, supported by Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. Tom Bradley, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Walter Johnson, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Tom Urwin, Mr. Edwin Wainwright and Mr. Frederick Willey, presented a Bill to modify the duties of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service with respect to references of recognition issues: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th January and to be printed [Bill 13].

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Ian Mikardo, supported by Mr. Ted Fletcher, Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. Tom Bradley, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Walter Johnson, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Tom Urwin, Mr. Edwin Wainwright and Mr. Frederick Willey, presented a Bill to validate agreements by independent trade unions for restricting references of recognition issues to the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service; and to amend the law relating to unfair dismissal following lock-outs or strikes or other industrial action in connection with recognition issues; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27th January and to be printed [Bill 14].

ESTATE AGENTS

Mr. Bryan Davies, supported by Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Nigel Forman, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Bryan Gould, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Nicholas Scott, Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. Michael Ward and Mr. Ken Weetch, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the carrying on of, and to persons who carry on, certain activities in connection with the disposal and acquisition of property used or intended for use, in whole or in part, for residential purposes; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3rd February and to be printed [Bill 15].

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend, supported by Mr. Nigel Forman, Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Nicholas Scott, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. Richard Luce, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. George Rodgers, Mr. Ken Weetch and Mr. John Cartwright, presented a Bill to prevent the exploitation of children by their use in the production of films or photographic material of an obscene or pornographic character: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10th February and to be printed [Bill 16].

POST OFFICE WORKERS (INDUSTRIAL ACTION)

Mr. Norman Buchan, supported by Mr. Denis Canavan, Mr. Joseph Dean, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Tom Urwin, Mr. John Ovenden and Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth, presented a Bill to limit the extent to which industrial action by workers in the Post Office falls within the ambit of the criminal law: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17th February and to be printed [Bill 17].

SMALL BUSINESSES (PROTECTION OF EMPLOYMENT) (AMENDMENT)

Mr. David Mitchell on behalf of Mr. John Osborn, supported by Mr. David Mitchell, Mr. John Cope, Mr. John Love-ridge, Mr. Esmond Bulmer, Mr. John Wakeham, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. George Younger, Mr. Robert Rhodes James and Mr. Andrew MacKay, presented a Bill to assist in the creation of jobs by small businesses and others by providing for Industrial Tribunals to hold preliminary hearings in respect of claims for unfair dismissal and to exclude employment of less than one year from certain provisions of the law relating to employment protection: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24th February and to be printed [Bill 18].

CONSUMER SAFETY

Mr. Neville Trotter, supported by Sir Raymond Gower, Mr. David Watkins, Mr. Richard Wainwright, Mr. Hamish


Watt, Mr. George Younger, Mr. Ronald Atkins, Mr. John Cope, Mr. Michael Thomas, Mr. Tony Newton, Mr. David Young and Mr. John Wakeham presented a Bill to make further provision for the safety of consumers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27th January and to be printed [Bill 19].

COMPANIES (QUALIFICATION OF COMPANY SECRETARIES)

Mr. John Cockcroft, supported by Sir John Hall, Mr. Michael Ward, Mr. George Gardiner, Mr. R. Graham Page, Mr. Peter Hordern, Mr. Neville Trotter, Mr. Giles Radice and Mr. Jack Dunnett, presented a Bill to make provision for the qualification of a person to act as Secretary to a company; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th January and to be printed [Bill 20].

SALE OF SALMON

Mr. Peter Morrison, supported by Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. John Knott, Mr. Ian MacCormick, Mr. Jasper More, Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. John Farr, Sir John Gilmour and Mr. Charles Morrison, presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of salmon and sea trout unlawfully acquired and taken; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3rd February and to be printed [Bill 21].

ARMED FORCES (REPOSSESSION OF DWELLINGS)

Mr. Churchill, supported by Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Julian Critchley, Mr. Philip Goodhart, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Reg Prentice, Mr. Norman Tebitt, Mr. Geoffrey Pattie, Mr. Victor Good-hew, Mr. Robert Banks and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, presented a Bill to facilitate the repossession of dwellings owned by members of Her Majesty's Forces; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10th February and to be printed [Bill 22].

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT)

Mr. David Madel, supported by Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Michael Joplin, Mr. David Knox, Sir Anthony Meyer, Mr. David Mudd and Mr. Cranley Onslow, presented a Bill to enable electors who are away on holiday at the time of a Parliamentary election to vote by post or by proxy; to make provision in respect of the registration for electoral purposes of certain persons resident abroad; to make further provision for the registration for electoral purposes of wives and husbands of members of the armed forces; to provide for the correction of the register of electors; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17th February and to be printed [Bill 23].

RATING

Mr. Robert Hughes, supported by Mr. Hugh McCartney, Mr. George Rodgers, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Robin F. Cook, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, Mr. David Price, Dr. Alan Glyn and Mr. John Hannam, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to relief from rates in respect of premises used by disabled persons and invalids; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3rd February and to be printed [Bill 24].

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, supported by Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Mr. Clement Freud, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Andrew Faulds, Mr. David Walder, Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. William Shelton, Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. Norman Lamont, Sir Anthony Royle and Sir George Sinclair, presented a Bill to recognise, establish and make provision for a public lending right for authors; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24th February and to be printed [Bill 25].

CIVIL LIABILITY (CONTRIBUTION)

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie, supported by Mr. Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Greville Janner,


Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. James Molyneaux, Mr. Edward Gardner, Mr. John Watkinson, Mr. Ian Lawrence and Mr. Kevin McNamara, presented a Bill to make new provision for contribution between persons who are jointly or severally, or both jointly and severally, liable for the same damage and in certain other similar cases where two or more persons have paid or may be required to pay compensation for the same damage; and to amend the law relating to proceedings against persons jointly liable for the same debt or jointly or severally, or both jointly and severally, liable for the same damage: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th January and to be printed [Bill 26].

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Ronald Atkins, supported by Mr. Kenneth Warren, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Richard Wainwright, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mrs. Margaret Bain, Mr. Tom Litterick, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Robin F. Cook, Mr. Stan Thorne and Mr. Leslie Spriggs, presented a Bill to provide for public access to information held by Department of State, local authorities and other public bodies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3rd February and to be printed [Bill 27].

CONTROL OF ENCAMPMENTS

Mr. Nicholas Edwards, supported by Mr. Jerry Wiggin, Mr. David Crouch, Mr. Robert Boscawen, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. Gwynfor Evans, Mr. John Wells and Mr. Richard Crawshaw, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to certain encampments and gatherings: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th January and to be printed [Bill 28].

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet, supported by Mr. John Spence, Mr. Evelyn King, Mr. Keith Stainton, Mr. Frank Hooley, Mr. Nigel Forman, Mr. David Mudd, Mr. Neil Macfarlane and Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, presented a Bill to make provision for

the development of the nuclear industry and the management and disposal of nuclear waste by the establishment of a Nuclear Waste Management Advisory Committee and a Nuclear Waste Disposal Corporation; to make provision with respect to the functions of each body; to authorise loans and guarantees in connection therewith; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3rd February and to be printed [Bill 29].

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1974 (AMEND MENT)

Mr Ivor Clemitson, supported by Mr. George Rodgers, Mr. Antony Buck, Mr. Dan Jones, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. David Lambie, Mr. John Cope, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. David Watkins, Mr. Gwilym Roberts, Mr. Bruce Grocott and Mr. Mike Thomas, presented a Bill to amend The Local Government Act 1974 with respect to investigations by Local Commissioners; and for purposes connected therewith. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th January and to be printed [Bill 30].

DUTIES OF COMPANY DIRECTORS

Mr. Adam Butler, supported by Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Esmond Bulmer, Mr. Barney Hayhoe, Mr. David Madel, Mr. Cecil Parkinson, Mr. Tim Renton and Mr. David Price, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the duties of directors of companies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th January and to be printed [Bill 31].

INTERNATIONALLY PROTECTED PERSONS

Mr. William Whitlock, supported by Mr. Sydney Tierney, Mr. Philip Holland and Mr. Edward Lyons, presented a Bill to implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, adopted by The United Nations General Assembly in 1973: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th January and to be printed [Bill 32].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business), the Motion relating to Energy Policy and Nuclear Energy may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock or for two hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Bates.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND BILL

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 5th December]

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. This will be a brief point of order.
The Committee knows that we are in difficulty with amendments and clauses which are affected by the timetable motion and which are not called at all. I give you early warning, Mr. Murton, that some of us regard Amendments Nos. 144 to 146 as most important. We express the hope that when you are arranging these matters in advance it will be possible to take those amendments, so that there is the opportunity for the Committee to vote.
The amendments relate to the British Waterways Board, the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, and forestry interests, both public and private. All of those matters are now being added to subjects in which doctors, civil aviation experts and others are concerned. Various groups in Scotland are now becoming more aware of what is happening, and the more they are finding out, the less they like the Bill. This is a recurring pattern among those who are gaining knowledge of these provisions. Therefore, I hope that matters that affect groups of technical people in Scotland will be taken at some time when they can be discussed and voted upon.

The Chairman: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that all the points he raises in his point of order on specific amendments will be taken into account when the selection is made.

Clause 35

POWER TO MAKE CHANGES IN LAW CONSEQUENTIAL ON SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY ACTS

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I beg to move Amendment No. 115, in page 16, line 15, after 'Kingdom', insert
'insofar but only insofar as it pertains to Scotland'.

The Chairman: With this we may take Amendment No. 118, in page 16, line 21, after 'section', insert
'if it affects any part of the United Kingdom whose government is not changed by this Act and'.

Mr. Macmillan: Before I deal with the amendment, may I make a suggestion which may be appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) who is now occupying the Opposition Front Bench and the Government to consider.
I suggest that the Business Committee should be reconvened to see whether we may take "injury time" out of the proceedings on this Bill. What are already short debates on important clauses are being further curtailed by the necessary and equally important matters relating to Europe, the Polish ships order and other matters, but it seems a little hard that when we are under a timetable procedure we are unable to discuss such important matters as were raised a little earlier by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) relating to a number of groups of people in Scotland who will be affected by this legislation.
I hope that these matters will be discussed between the Front Benches so that we may not lose any time that has been allocated to us. This will be unlikely to add more than three-quarters of an hour to the proceedings and will not normally mean the Committee sitting after midnight. I hope that this matter will be considered through the usual channels.
If I may deal with the amendment, I hope during this discussion to obtain an answer to the question I put to the Minister of State last night on Clause 34. I shall ask it again because it is also relevant to Clause 35 and to Amendment No. 115. If a United Kingdom Minister, whether acting on his own or as agent for a Scottish Secretary or Scottish Assembly, wishes to obtain information from a Scottish Secretary or the Assembly, he can do so if the Secretary of State for Scotland so requests. However, this House cannot insist that a Minister, who is accountable to us in theory at least, should be able to obtain through the Secretary of State from a Scottish Secretary information relating to actions of Ministers, who again are theoretically responsible to this House, when

acting as agents or on their own. It is an important factor that this House cannot get its hands on such information, and the situation will be doubly uncertain if this amendment to Clause 35 is not accepted by the Government.
Clause 35 as it stands means that the Government of the day can use their majority to push through an order in council on subordinate legislation which under the rules of this House cannot be amended but must be accepted or rejected. Such an Order in Council can enable the Assembly to legislate for the United Kingdom. This legislation will mean that we shall be unable to obtain information from the Assembly because it cannot be forced to provide such material. That situation arises because of our failure to amend Clause 34 since an Order in Council allows the Assembly to legislate for other parts of the United Kingdom. United Kingdom Members of Parliament, Scottish as well as English, will be powerless to obtain information which they require in order to see what the Assembly is up to. That Assembly can even alter the provisions of this Bill because it says so specifically.
The Government by Order in Council can alter the provisions of this legislation once enacted, including Schedule 2. Schedule 2 governs the legislative competence of the Assembly. Therefore, by Order in Council which is unable to be amended by any Member of this House, subject—and one is grateful for small mercies—to the affirmative procedure, the Government may use their majority to alter the legislative competence of the Assembly, whether the Assembly likes it or not, and indeed whether it is requested by the Assembly. They can increase or decrease those powers. This will be asking for trouble. If the powers of the Assembly are increased at the expense of this House, that will cause trouble here, and if its powers are decreased in other ways it will cause trouble in the Assembly.
I shall not repeat previous discussions on the relationship between a devolved Assembly and this House. The nature of our amendments makes that situation clear. It is fitting in some ways that Clause 35 should be the first clause under the subheading that always tends to be a most sinister element in a Bill—that is, the subheading that refers to the


supplementary and reserve powers that the Government are seeking and which they are, as usual, saying they will not need to use, but which will be used in fact by some later government to the detriment of the liberties of the people.
We have received, as usual, during the course of debates on the Bill, the normal ministerial defences of the extension of powers. We have heard the defence that as in the Victorian story of the illegitimate child—this extension of power is only a little one and not very important. We have heard the defence that the situation that has been described by hon. Members on both sides of the House is unlikely to occur. I do not accept that any more, and I hope that the rest of the House and the country will not either, for time has proved it false.
I was a junior Treasury Minister in 1963 and I remember the arguments about ministerial discretion put forward during the course of legislation on export credit guarantees. Even then we were not strangers to incomes policy, but at no time then did anyone imagine that credit would be refused to a firm to force it to carry out an incomes policy—that was not even a policy but simply a guideline—and that it would be used to expand Government by prerogative away from the will of Parliament and the people.
Throughout their history this Government have made any defence of unlikelihood untenable. They have allowed powerful groups to operate beyond the rule of law and have themselves operated unconstitutionally and extended Government prerogative to an extent that would make a Stuart green with jealousy. They are continuing to do that through the legislation introduced in this clause.
There is a total of four amendents down to this clause, and, together, they are intended to do two things. They would legitimise the Long Title of the Bill. The Long Title now says:
To provide for changes in the government of Scotland and in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies.
As the clause now stands, it is plain that "certain public bodies" includes the Government of the whole of the United Kingom, as well as affecting hon. Members and the Crown. If it were amended the Bill would indeed be about the government of Scotland.
The second object of the amendments is to make the marginal description of Clause 35 truthful. Not only is the Title entirely false as it now stands, but so is the marginal description of the clause. It says that it is a clause giving
Power to make changes in law consequential on Scottish Assembly Acts.
It is more than that. However, it would become only that if one of the amendments—I think it is Amendment No. 117—were accepted by the Government because that would remove the words "or expedient" so that the Bill would read:
further provision as appears to Her to be necessary in consequence of any provision made by or under any Scottish Assembly Act
The removal of the words "or expedient" would go some way towards justifying the description of this clause as making consequential changes following Scottish Assembly Acts. No doubt the Government will say that is what they wish to use the clause for, so why not amend the clause so that it cannot be used for another purpose—as it can be now?

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): May I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Administration that brought before the House the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill 1973 and that there is an almost entirely similar provision in Section 38(2) of that legislation. Did the right hon. Gentleman feel these doubts at the time that that was discussed?

Mr. Macmillan: Even the most stubborn, bloody-minded expatriate Scot can learn from experience. I wish that the Government Front Bench could do so, too.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I am probably the last hon. Member here who should say this and it should not lie in my mouth, but the Committee is in difficulties because it seems that the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) is discussing the question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. I ask whether we are on Amendments Nos. 115 and 118. Some of us think that Amendment No. 430 is extremely important. Does the Chair wish us to make our speeches before the guillotine in one lump and leave it at that?

The Chairman: I disagree with that point of order. The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) is speaking to his amendment, and I do not intend to amend the selection in any way.

Mr. Macmillan: I take the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian, and I, too, think that Amendment No. 430 is important.
Amendments Nos. 115 and 118 would confine subsections (1) and (2) to Scotland and the people of Scotland. The wording of the two amendments is slightly different but, together, they are designed to confine the clause to Scotland. Amendment No. 430 is part of the same scheme, because there is a danger of the powers of the Act being extended if there is an Order in Council. That would automatically happen if Amendments Nos. 115 and 118 were not carried. If they were not carried, Amendment No. 430 would be even more important. Equally, Amendment No. 117 is included in the amendments that we are now discussing because that would remove the expediency reason for using the powers contained in the clause. It is therefore the weakest of the amendments.

The Chairman: Order. I said that we were now discussing Amendments Nos. 115 and 118 together, in answer to the hon. Member for West Lothian who raised the point, and I said specifically that the selection was shown in the way that it is. We are discussing Amendments Nos. 115 and 118 only.

Mr. Macmillan: I am sure that if the Committee were wise enough to carry these amendments the point that the hon. Member for West Lothian wanted to make in the other amendments would be covered. If one considers how the wording of Amendments Nos. 115 and 118 would alter it, the clause becomes clear. I shall not read them now in order to save time.
If one asked what these amendments would take away from the people of Scotland the answer would be "Nothing". That is partly because Schedule 2, paragraph 8 enables the Assembly to legislate on borderline cases. We have already discussed that and therefore, from the Assembly's point of view there will be no need for extra powers to enable the Assembly to legislate for the United Kingdom in the way that

these amendments seek to prevent. The amendments take away the power of the Executive to decide, in a form unamendable by the House, to use its majority to put forward changes that could not be altered, that, because of what happened on Clause 34, could probably not be questioned in operation, and that would thereby increase the power of the Executive.
4.30 p.m.
It one looks at the whole group of clauses in this part of the Bill, one can see that they are a cynical preparation that will enable the Bill, once it becomes an Act, to be extended to cover separation or federation with the minimum amount of amendment and possibly even by Order in Council. That seems to be possible under Clause 35 as it stands. It is a more dangerous extension of administrative power than we have seen for a long time and it is more likely to cause conflict than anything we have seen for some time. It is all the more sinister because, in putting it through, the Government seem almost unconscious of the dangers they are about to face.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend see any reason, under the clause as it stands, to prevent a Scottish Assembly from insisting on separation and the Government in this country making an Order in Council, consequential upon that, permitting the separation of Scotland from the United Kingdom? Where is there anything in the clause, if it is not amended, to prevent that?

Mr. Macmillan: That is a valid point which can be developed later. I had deliberately left out the awkward constitutional points which this could raise, but since my hon. Friend has brought them in, I must say that there is something extremely distasteful about using an Order in Council, which is debatable, but not amendable, and to put it into a Bill in this form, to make major constitutional changes that will put the Crown in an extremely difficult position. No Privy Councillor should do that.
Unless the amendments are accepted, the Bill will apply to the United Kingdom. I do not see how any amendment or new clause referring to the government of the United Kingdom, England, Wales


or Northern Ireland in relation to Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole can be out of order. If the amendments are not acceptable to the Government, the Committee must look to new clauses—some of which have already been put down and will be followed by others—to limit the powers of Scottish Members here and to discuss their numbers and constituencies and the problems of regionalism in other parts of the United Kingdom. There will also have to be new schedules listing those matters which must never be devolved. That negative power will be required in any Act that contains this clause as it stands.

Mr. Dalyell: Last night, the Minister of State referred to nightmares that I might have about the Bill. In the nightmares, one canard which does not feature is one of the issues implicit in Amendment No. 115. I do not think that it does the case which I and others put forward very much good to claim that the Scottish Assembly will be able to make many laws affecting England. There may be minor problems from time to time, but I do not see this as a major problem, and I wish to put that on the record.
Some of us want to hurry on to Amendment No. 430, so let me just put this question to the Minister of State. Is it realistic to say exactly what the devolved and non-devolved powers are to be?
The memorandum of the Faculty of Advocates issued on 22nd February 1977 says on page 3, paragraph 4:
the Faculty expressed the view that it was impossible to draw a satisfactory line of demarcation between devolved and non-devolved matters in the manner proposed in the White Paper. The provisions in the Bill, which are discussed in more detail below, reinforce that view.
Of course, that was the Scotland and Wales Bill, but I get the impression—though the Faculty has not yet produced a memorandum on this Bill—that many of the difficulties that it went on to outline between devolved and non-devolved matters are continued in this Bill.
May I ask the Minister of State, when he is speaking for the Government and as a lawyer—in the presence of the Lord Advocate—whether in light of the fears expressed by the Faculty, the distinction between devolved and non-devolved mat

ters is adequate? This is an issue which arises at various stages in the Bill and not least out of Amendment No. 115.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister of State has just used the Northern Ireland Bill as a precedent, but he will realise that it was passed in very different circumstances from the passing of this Bill. In fact, it was passed in emergency circumstances. Are we now discussing this Bill in emergency circumstances in Scotland? I do not think so. I think that we are discussing a straightforward and substantial constitutional change. The clause makes one of the most major changes in the whole Bill.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that he did not think that the Scottish Assembly would wish to legislate for England or for any other part of the United Kingdom than Scotland, but that is not the point of the clause. It gives power to the Secretary of State here, by Order in Council, to alter the laws of the United Kingdom consequential upon a Scottish Assembly Act.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: Subject to the approval of the House.

Mr. Page: Subject to approval by having before us a draft which cannot be debated line by line or amended.

Mr. Gourlay: We shall be able to vote.

Mr. Page: Indeed, we shall be able to reject it, but why bother with the Bill at all if that sort of legislation on major constitutional matters is to be pushed through by the majority in power at the time?
Let me give a fairly simple example. Under the schedule of devolved powers, the Scottish Assembly can legislate on criminal penalties. Suppose that it decided to pass an Act restoring capital punishment. I admit that I should be delighted, but take the case of two muggers who mug someone in Liverpool and then go to Glasgow and mug someone else there. Say that one returns to Liverpool and is convicted there and the other remains in Glasgow and is convicted there. The one in Glasgow might get thrashed while the one in Liverpool might be put on probation. There would be an outcry.


People would say that we cannot have that and that it is most expedient for the same penalties to apply in Scotland and in England.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am not sure which courts the right hon. Gentleman has been in recently. My impression was that when offenders came before the same court there could be different punishments for the same offences, depending on the circumstances. In any event, the laws in Scotland are different, and in some cases the penalties for certain offences and crimes are different. I cannot see what the right hon. Gentleman is driving at.

Mr. Page: When I endeavour to give a colourful example, it is natural that hon. Members should try to pick holes in it. Let me pick a hole in what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said. Let us suppose that birching was made mandatory in Scottish law. That is one case in which the Scottish law might be changed. There might be two people who have exactly the same blame and responsibility for an offence but would be punished differently. There would then be an outcry that the law and the penalties should be the same in both countries, and, therefore, it would be necessary or expedient under the clause to alter the laws of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is experienced in legal matters, despite what I indicated earlier. Is he suggesting, because of his contention that the same laws should apply and that there should be the same penalties in all parts of the United Kingdom, that Scots law should be integrated with English law to form a common code under which each citizen of the United Kingdom could live? The right hon. Gentleman is on the horns of a dilemma. He has to admit that the Scottish legal system is distinct and separate and that the people of Scotland want it that way, but he is also trying to get round the fact that the system needs to be nurtured and taken care of within its own legislative framework.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman is suffering from two misconceptions. I am not advocating that the law should be the same. I am saying that it may

be thought necessary or expedient that it should be the same. [Interruption.] I seem to have lost the attention of the Committee for some reason, but it is only a temporary distraction.
One can apply this argument not only to the example of corporal punishment but to any aspect of law where the Secretary of State here will think it necessary or expedient to have uniformity in the law. That is not legislating for Scotland. It is legislating for the United Kingdom to bring the law into line with some provision of a Scottish Assembly Act, which can come before the House of Commons by an Order in Council under Clause 35. That order need not apply to Scotland in any way. Under this clause it can be justified by the Minister who advises the Crown saying that it appears to him that it is necessary or expedient to have uniformity in the law on the subject in question. The Minister therefore lays an Order in Council in draft before the House for affirmative approval.
It has been suggested that, because the draft order will be laid before the House and will need affirmative resolution before it is passed, that procedure is quite safe because we can debate the order and possibly even reject it against the Government's majority at the time. I am sure that hon. Members know perfectly well what happens to a draft order when it is laid before the House and is backed by the Whips: it goes through. We cannot debate it or put down amendments to it. It is not like ordinary legislation at all. It can be steamrollered through by the Government in office, justified merely by the fact that an Act of the Scottish Assembly has been passed—uncontrollable by the House of Commons—which makes it, in the opinion of a Secretary of State here advising Her Majesty, necessary or expedient that we alter our law here.
4.45 p.m.
These amendments would prevent such a happening because they would restrict anything done by such an Order in Council to Scotland. It might well be necessary, and the House might so consider, that the Secretary of State here should advise Her Majesty to make an alteration in the law of Scotland to correct something which the House thought had


been wrongly done by the Scottish Assembly. These amendments would restrict such matters to alterations in the law of Scotland.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) said, the amendment would legitimise the clause in line with the Long Title—
changes in the government of Scotland.
But the clause as it stands provides for alterations in the laws of the whole United Kingdom, and to that extent it ought not to remain in the Bill unamended.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I shall be brief, having in mind the point already made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), that there are other important amendments which the Committee wishes to consider. But I must protest at the outset that it is a disgrace to the House of Commons that matters of this importance have to be dusted aside without adequate discussion and that further amendments on the Notice Paper will not be dealt with as they should be by a sovereign Parliament simply because a guillotine has been imposed and, what is more, made worse by the fact that we are not even allowed the injury time consequent upon the statement made by the Prime Miniter.
I ask you, Mr. Murton, to take seriously the initial point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) when he suggested that the Business Committee ought to consider whether the guillotine procedures could at least give us the injury time that we lose as a result of statements. [Interruption.] This is a matter which concerns all parties in the House, and I hope that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) will agree that it should be put and will support it.
The clause as it stands would provide a licence to the Government of the day to commit a constitutional outrage on the English. Whether there be precedents in Northern Ireland legislation or not, what it does, in effect, is to permit a subordinate Assembly in one relatively small part of the United Kingdom to trigger off changes in the law, made under delegated powers, which are unamend

able and which will affect the rest of the population.
There are, of course, the two provisos. The first is that the Government of the day should believe such a change to be necessary or expedient. But Governments always think that their legislation is necessary or expedient. Otherwise, they would not bring it forward. The second proviso is that the draft Order in Council shall be laid and approved by both Houses of Parliament. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) have plainly shown that that does not permit effective amendment, modification or revision. That procedure means only that, perhaps late at night, a major change will be brought forward and be steamrollered through without discussion.
We are not speaking here of minor changes. We are speaking of changes which can affect the lives of all our constituents in any of the matters within the purview of the Scottish Assembly—matters affecting education, transport and so forth—the warp and woof of the life of the people of this country.
If the Scottish Assembly were to decide to extend its powers, if it wished for example, to move into fields different from those within the Bill, and the Government of the day were to conclude that it was necessary or expedient by a draft Order in Council to permit that action to be legitimated, all that the Government would need to do under the clause as it stands would be to lay such an Order in Council and bring it before the House. Then, if there were a majority available to them, that would be the end of it, and the Scottish Assembly's action would be thus legitimated.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that any such action by the Scottish Assembly would be ultra vires under the powers provided by the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: As the clause stands, if the Government took the view that it was necessary or expedient and consequential upon an action of the Scottish Assembly, it would be open to the Minister of the day to bring before the House an Order in Council of that kind.

Mr. John Smith: With respect, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he suggested that the Assembly might extend its own powers and that that would be legitimated by use of the Order in Council. I am pointing out that the Assembly would have no such powers. It would be ultra vires under the powers in the Bill, so the condition precedent which would have to be met to make it "in consequence of" could not arise.

Mr. Griffiths: With respect to the Minister, I ask him to examine line 16 of Clause 35, where he will see the words in brackets:
including any provision contained in this Act.
It is precisely "this Act" which sets out where the vires stand or do not stand, and, as I see it, so long as those words within brackets remain, it would be possible for the Scottish Assembly to move into areas which its majority might legitimately think that its competence included. The Government might agree or disagree. I do not wish to carry on an extended argument, but does the Minister wish to intervene again?

Mr. John Smith: I do not wish to bandy words with the hon. Gentleman across the Floor, but the Committee ought to remember that the point of the clause is that it has to be "in consequence of" an Act of the Scottish Assembly. The Assembly has no power to extend its powers, so provision could not be used in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I leave it at that, but I want the Committee to be under no misapprehension such as that into which the hon. Gentleman, perhaps quite innocently, may be leading it.

Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged to the Minister, and I shall not continue to debate with him across the Floor, but I ask him to look carefully at the clause. I shall be obliged if he will put in writing to me his reading of the situation.

Mr. John Smith: indicated dissent.

Mr. Griffiths: I come now to my second point, a simple and practical point, and I shall be brief because I know that others wish to speak and we want to get on. By these amendments we seek to prevent an English backlash. I must give the Minister a warning. If we have a situation in which the English believe

themselves to be discriminated against, as, indeed, they are by the Bill, and they find that, because the Scottish Assembly has taken some action—the Minister and I can debate whether it be within the vires or not—touching education, punishment, local government or transport, and the Government of the day conclude that it is necessary or expedient to extend that action of the Scottish Assembly to the rest of the United Kingdom, that will be done.
But I warn the Minister that the English, though slow to anger, will sooner or later grasp what is being done. They will come to understand that the Scottish over-representation in the House of Commons is working to their disadvantage and that special and unique provisions made available to the Scottish Assembly are not available to the English. They will conclude that they are being discriminated against, and their anger, though slow to rise, will be sure, fierce and never ending.
If the Minister does not like these amendments, let him say how he will achieve their purpose, which, quite simply, is to prevent a situation in which actions of the Scottish Assembly can trigger off Orders in Council which apply to the English without the English representatives in the House of Commons having any opportunity by argument to amend, to revise, or to modify such Orders in Council brought in by the Government of the day.
The representatives of the English will be able to vote—the Minister is right about that—but they will not be able to amend, revise or modify anything brought before the House under delegated legislation arising from some action of the Scottish Assembly.
That cannot be right. I warn the Minister that, unless he can deal with this point, he will be sowing the seeds of great anger among the English, anger which he and I will come to regret.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I agree totally with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said about over-representation in Scotland. I should like to see that overrepresentation continue because of the nature of Scotland, but it is a fact that is as clear as daylight that from the moment


the Bill becomes an Act, if it does, the days of over-representation for Scotland are limited. The pressure from England for a reduction in the number of Scottish Members will grow swiftly.
I cannot agree with my hon. Friend about appealing to the Government to allow "injury" time. It is a farce to pretend that there is proper opportunity to debate the full implications and provisions of the Bill. If there were injury time it would, in the nature of things, clearly be limited. It might have the effect of salving the Government's conscience, but it would do nothing in reality to reduce the farce. It is better to leave the Government to get on with it and to take the full blame for the inadequate opportunity that they are allowing us to debate the Bill.
Clause 35 as it stands is yet another example of how inadequate is the limitation of the extent of the powers and provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) rather surprisingly said that on this occasion he was not unduly concerned. I think I am right in saying that he said that the clause is not one of the major problems, although occasionally it might cause minor problems. The hon. Gentleman may be proved right, but there is no certainty about what he said.

Mr. Dalyell: How were the citizens of Devizes or Bury St. Edmunds affected by what was done in Stormont?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that that is a reasonable parallel. We are dealing with a totally different situation. What may or may not have happened in Stormont in the past is not necessarily a precedent for what might have happened if Stormont had continued to exist.
I emphasise a point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds touched. When the electors in England vote for a Member of Parliament, whether their choice is elected or not, they expect the person elected to be responsible, so far as he or she can be, for the course of events controlled until now from the House of Commons. If the clause is left unamended, the majority choice of the electorate will no longer be in such a position of power to exer

cise influence on events. There is no doubt in my mind but that the Assembly will not merely exercise direct control in Scotland. The fact is that it will affect the course of events and the nature of the law in England.

Mr. James Dempsey: I am interested in the argument that the hon. Gentleman is advancing and I ask him to answer a question. When he talks about the Scottish Assembly influencing the law of England, is he suggesting, for example, that the Scottish Assembly could activate an issue presented under the auspices of the Secretary of State in an Order in Council to interfere with the immigration laws of this country?

Mr. Morrison: That is precisely what I am suggesting. In my interpretation of the clause, that is what could easily happen if the Bill should become an Act.
5.0 p.m.
When the Minister of State replies, he will argue that that is not the case and that the Bill is not like that. I suspect that he will argue as he did when we were debating certain consequences of Schedule 2(8), but in my opinion we must judge the Bill as it is drafted and not on the basis of the opinion of the Minister of State. The hon. Gentleman may put a reasonable and attractive interpretation upon what is in the Bill, but there is no certainty that others will interpret this measure, should it become an Act, in the same way.
I hope that for once the Minister will accept an Opposition amendment. If he does not, I believe that yet again he will be adding to the sum total of conflict, muddle and disillusionment among the public. I am thinking of the public in England as well as in Scotland, because, above all, it is those in England who will be indirectly affected by what we are now debating.

Mr. William Small: Once again there is the appearance of the English disease and the repetitive position of the English. All I know about the English is that they are haunted by ghosts and ghoulies, usually headless, clanking their chains through their castles enveloped in fear and terror.
This is the most poorly drafted amendment that I have ever seen. It seeks to insert
insofar but only insofar as it pertains to Scotland".
I hope that some legal luminary will be able to tell me the meaning of that repetitive phrase. This legal jargon is not even literal. It does not mean a thing. To that extent it is an imperfect amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase "to that extent", which is "insofar".

Mr. Small: Very well, let us say pro tanto. I want to clear my mind and the minds of others. It may be that those who have tabled the amendment are talking to the innocent. The meaning of the clause is perfectly simple in every aspect. It is well drafted.
It seems that the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) is afraid of a red Socialist revolution and an Assembly in Scotland. That is his great fear. He need have no fear of the SNP, because at best its members are tartan albinos. They have no red blood in their veins. If we talk about the Loch Ness Monster or the White Stag of Arran, these picturesque topics will surely attract the English to visit the Assembly to observe it operating. They will have an interest in the preservation of Scotland's environmental amenities.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small), bearing in mind the interesting phrases that he produces. I am sure that we all enjoy his contributions.
It has been said that this is a fairly simple clause. So it is. We are dealing with an amendment that seeks to weaken it and to prevent it from taking the effect that the Government have in mind.
I know that we cannot fully trust margin notes, but in this instance the note reads:
Power to make changes in law consequential on Scottish Assembly Acts".
I suspect that the Minister will explain some of the trip wires that exist before any Scottish Assembly Act can take effect and before the procedure under the clause can be operated.
It is clear that many of the worries expressed, particularly by Conservative Members, have been exaggerated, and if the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) does not fear the consequences of this particular clause and says it is a de minimis situation which will rarely be invoked, hon. Members need not worry too much about it [Interruption.] I hope always that the arguments are related to the amendment and the clause.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Although the fears of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) may not be very great, is the hon. Member convinced that our interpretation of the clause cannot be realised?

Mr. Wilson: I would probably like to see the clause in much stronger terms allowing for continual upgrading of the powers of the Assembly. I am not sure that I am satisfied with the clause as at present worded, but that is to approach the matter from the other point of view.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the hon Member not agree that it would be most helpful to the Committee on this difficult matter if some of the shadow Law Officers were present?

Mr. Wilson: Whether the shadow Law Officers or the Law Officers themselves are present is a matter for the Government and the Opposition to determine.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) made the valid point that he wanted to see a stronger wording of the clause. One of the difficulties with the clause without our amendments is that it is possible for the Assembly to act in such a way that a Minister would be entitled to say that an Order in Council laid before this House would be consequential, when the purpose of that Order in Council was to reduce the powers of the Assembly consequent upon its actions and would thereby lead to conflict between the Assembly and this House.

Mr. Wilson: The valid point is the one about conflict. However, I would look at the matter from another aspect. One of the repeated arguments against this Bill is that the Scottish Assembly would be in a continual state of trench warfare


with Whitehall and Westminster. The clause seeks to provide an area in which there can be co-operation, where the rigidity of statutory terms in the Bill can in certain respects be relaxed, and where, should difficulties arise under Clause 35, action can be taken through an Order in Council to remedy those difficulties.
If hon. Members have any worries about the situation, they must surely be alleviated by the fact that an order must be laid before and approved by each House of Parliament—not just the democratically elected House of Commons, but the undemocratically selected or inherited House of Lords. The two Houses of Parliament, dominated by a substantial English majority, have, unfortunately, the last say. So I cannot see why this set of amendments is necessary in the context of Clause 35.
If hon. Members were worried about the prospect of difficulty between the Scottish Assembly and the House of Commons, it could arise over the delay in getting enabling legislation through the House of Commons, thus creating a situation whereby Scottish Assembly Acts are partly in force, but are affected by the need for parallel legislation within the House of Commons. We know and have had experience of this in relation to Scots law when there tends to be a delay before the law of Scotland is given effect. We have before us the chance of a quick method by which minor changes—and I stress that—can be made in order to bring Scottish Assembly Acts into force in the way intended.
The argument being adopted by hon. Members in support of these amendments would tend towards the contrary effect. I have one question for the Minister concerning the extent to which he feels that any doubt or confusion about the powers of the Assembly might be clarified. If there is sufficient doubt to make a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council necessary, that sort of doubt, which is a genuine doubt and not one arising from political conflict, would have to be resolved by separate Westminster legislation. If there is doubt as to whether the Scottish Assembly has power to legislate in a given way in terms of the interpretation of the Bill, would Clause 35, amended or unamended, be sufficient

to allow such necessary clarifying changes to take place?
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) did not answer to my satisfaction the question of a possible demand emerging that in the United Kingdom there should be one law for crimes of a similar nature with the same penalties in Scotland and England. Regardless of my political stance, I believe that there is a strength in diversity as well as the oft-quoted strength in unity about which we hear so much in this House. It is a strength when there are different codes of law because they can have a cross-pollinating effect and strengthen each other at times. There must be times when the principles can become confused as between one court of law and another, and the law therefore weakened.

Mr. Graham Page: What would the hon. Member say if the Secretary of State advised Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to bring the Scottish law into line with the English law, because that could be done under the clause?

Mr. Wilson: The mistake that the right hon. Gentleman is making is to look at the terms of the Bill and the Scottish Assembly in a vacuum. In practice, these things would not happen, and unless and until there was opinion in Scotland and England for such radical changes, they would not take effect. However, I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman would suggest as an improvement the assimilation of the Scottish legal system with that of England.
I do not foresee any real difficulty with the operation of the clause. I see no need for the amendments which have been suggested by the Opposition. I hope in this case that they will have the grace to withdraw them rather than put the House to the unnecessary trouble of rejecting them.

Mr. Dempsey: I shall be brief in view of the desire of the Committee to proceed to other amendments. However, I have been trying to follow the arguments of right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, especially in the light of my study of Clause 35. I understood that the Scottish Assembly had certain limited powers and had been delegated certain functions, and it is in those areas that the Assembly is entitled,


through the Secretary of State, to improve and strengthen the operation of those functions. I can see no argument against that.
However, I fail to understand how that can be interpreted to mean that the Scottish Assembly could ultimately bring about alterations in the laws and policies of the United Kingdom. That is what the Conservatives are arguing. How could anyone by any stretch of the imagination suggest that the Assembly, through the Secretary of State for Scotland, could activate a change of policy in the endeavours to secure a settlement in Rhodesia? That is what is being said this afternoon.
I think that very heavy weather is being made of these amendments, which are unnecessary. When the Assembly gets into operation and applies the powers legislated for by this House, it will realise that it must be able to change and strengthen those powers, and there is no reason why it should not be allowed to do so. There is no reason why the rest of the United Kingdom should not fall into line with Scotland if the Scots are operating a sounder and more sensible policy. It would not be the first time that such a thing has happened. Only recently I supported a successful amendment to police legislation to bring English provisions into line with those of Scotland.
5.15 p.m.
In many of these respects there will be a certain amount of gain from experience. Why should not the Scottish people have the power to decide for themselves? For example, if in their wisdom they decide that young people should attend an educational or training establishment until they are 18, surely they are entitled to do that. If that proves to be a more sensible approach than that taken in the rest of the United Kingdom, it is up to Parliament to examine it.
I become rather annoyed and irritated at the constant references to the 71 Members of Parliament from Scotland. One would think that the United Kingdom Parliament had no control over Scotland, but it has. The Scottish Assembly will operate through a block grant which is approved by the House of Commons. If

that grant is £1,000 million, the Assembly will have to operate within that total. If it is £3,000 million, the Assembly will be able to build more houses and provide more opportunities. That grant will be determined by the House of Commons. We shall have the ultimate control over what is spent north of the border.
Having listened to all the arguments, I feel that the Minister of State is on the right lines. It would be a mistake if he were to accept any of the amendments and thereby prevent the Scottish Assembly from improving itself.

Mr. David Crouch: The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has made a valuable contribution to the debate. He brought us some common sense and I appreciate what he has said.
I am not guided by a knowledge of constitutional law or by the party Whips. The divisions on the Bill go right across party lines. Although I represent a South of England constituency, I do not argue on the basis of the so-called "Deep South" opposition to Home Rule. Yesterday I listened to much of the debate, but I made no contribution. Today I have listened to the whole debate and I find that it has not been a waste of time. I give all the contributors to the debate the benefit of the doubt by saying that not one of them has been trying to trip up the Bill on its way to becoming law.
I shall not be sorry to see the Bill become law, although it is not perfect in all its parts. I am not well versed, experienced or guided in any way on constitutional law, but perhaps as we proceed we shall find elements in the Bill which, after our mature consideration, will be seen in the light of experience. Perhaps we shall discover that the Assembly and the working of the Bill are not so much deficient as not efficient. We might discover situations which are seen to be to the disadvantage of good devolved government in and by Scotland and to good legislation in the United Kingdom. We may have to improve the situation.
In the last 50 years—or perhaps it is 500 years—we have had only one experiment at dispersing government from Westminster. We are not experienced in creating new constitutional legislation.

Mr. Nick Budgen: It appears that my hon. Friend believes that the Committee wishes to give too few powers to the devolved Assembly. Does my hon. Friend support this clause? He seems to want to make it easier for the Scottish Assembly to have bigger and better powers as it has bigger and better conflicts with the House of Commons.

Mr. Crouch: One of the dangers of giving way is that one might lose one's way. I do not wish to do that. I respect my hon. Friend's intervention, but I believe that there is a feeling among many hon. Members who are against the Bill that we should constrain and restrict the powers of the Assembly so that it becomes nothing more than a window display in Edinburgh. That is not my view.
I am very much an Englishman. I am concerned about my constituents and that I should continue to be able to represent them here. I am anxious that I should be able to exercise my responsibility to them in the United Kingdom. But I do not want to create something that is no more than a constitutional joke in Scotland.
I am not against a measure of Home Rule for Scotland. I use that phrase advisedly. I do not take constitutional advice, but I listened with exasperation yesterday to the frightened voices of those who love this Parliament and who are afraid to give any powers of decision-making to the Scottish Assembly.
It would be quite wrong to assume that the Government, in their drafting of this legislation, have left an open-ended arrangement for Scottish legislation which could affect legislation in the United Kingdom. I understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) wishes to insert the words that he suggests in order to constrain the Scottish Assembly in its relationship to this Parliament. I understand his concern that there should be no possible chance of a measure passed by the Assembly altering the law of the United Kingdom. Without the advice of constitutional lawyers, I believe that Clause 35(2) contains sufficient provision.
I do not want us to encourage an English backlash. I do not want people outside the Committee to feel that there

is a growing backlash here which they can take up themselves. We must not encourage the English to feel that we are giving the Scots such rights that they can break away, or break into, the United Kingdom and so distort our future legislation.
I hope that my hon. Friends have listened to what I have said in the knowledge that I am not experienced in these matters. I speak as one who is anxious that we do not allow anyone outside—whether in England, Scotland or anywhere else—to have the impression that we are trying to limit this step towards a measure of home rule for Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman is making a candid, forthright and honest contribution. Part of the difficulty, as he has emphasised four times, is inexperience. All of us, including myself, perhaps started off by thinking "This looks attractive". The difficulty is that the more one knows about this whole process, the more one understands the difficulties of having a subordinate parliament in part, though only part, of a unitary State. That is why, as they come to learn and understand more of the difficulties, so many Scottish interests, including the doctors and those involved in civil aviation and in public and private forestry, among others, have expressed so much anxiety and objection.

Mr. Crouch: I would be the first to bow to the hon. Gentleman as the expert without being a constitutional lawyer. He has not missed a moment in this Chamber, both on this Bill and on the Scotland and Wales Bill in the last Session. We all respect his concern. After all, he lives in Scotland amidst constituents who could be the principal beneficiaries of this Bill giving them something that they do not now have. I, too, have witnessed him at work in his attack on the Bill. But I have often found, from my parliamentary experience, that, when one takes up a cause, the more one follows that cause, the more one stays down that path. The hon. Gentleman has gone a fair way down that path in this matter and he cannot come back now. His objections down to the very end of that path will always be heard, but I believe that he is on the wrong path.
We are hesitant in this country to take new steps. I have never known a country


so hesitant as Britain is today to take new steps, particularly regarding law and constitutional change. I have never seen people so hesitant as we are today about extending democracy in Europe, or about allowing the Scots to have a little measure of Home Rule. Why should we suddenly stop and say "It is not possible"? What happened before 1703? It is extraordinary that we should consider that this is something that we dare not allow the Scots to have.
I would be the first to concede that, in parts of the Bill, perhaps even in parts of Clause 35, there may be mistakes which are not spotted by those who are greater experts than I. But we should not be so frightened or hesitant about making these changes. Above all, when we make these moves we should not make them in the spirit of distrust of the Scots themselves, of distrust of the democracy of the Scots, of distrust of the spirit of democracy which must exist there, and of distrust of the quality of the people who will take part in carrying out not just the letter of this measure but the spirit. We have to put that spirit in, not just by what is in the Bill, but by what we say and how we say it in this place. That is the only purpose of my intervention.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: I intend no discourtesy to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) when I say that I would find it difficult to serve as even the lowliest Parliamentary Secretary when he formed his first Administration. I find myself in full disagreement with the views that he has just expressed.
It would be ungracious not to pay tribute to the momentary presence in our debate earlier today of the Lord Advocate. It is a matter of regret to us that he is not here now. I know that it is a matter of regret to the Minister of State that I should be referring to his absence.
The Minister of State will not like this, but he gave the impression—perhaps it was a false impression—that somehow he, too, was resentful of the fact that we were debating Clause 35. In his first intervention he told us that we need not really worry and put down amendments, that there was nothing very important in the clause, that the powers conferred

upon the Queen in Council would be used very carefully, and that any Minister would exercise his powers with great wisdom. That was certainly the impression that he gave.
Clause 35 confers on the Government of the day additional power to alter the laws of the United Kingdom by Order in Council. It is true that this requires an affirmative resolution of each House, but it is the official policy of the Labour Party that we should abolish the other place, so one of the safeguards written into subsection (2) will vanish if Labour Party policy is implemented. As the situation now stands we are to have an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. But if the Labour Party has its way, there will be an affirmative resolution of one House only.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) pointed out, the affirmative resolution procedure allows no amendment and allows for a debate which, in almost every case, lasts only for one and a half hours. It is simply not good enough for the Minister of State to say to the Committee "Do not worry; the powers here will be used sparingly. Put your trust in us." That is the most fatal temptation into which a legislature can fall.
It is, above all, the most fatal temptation at a time when the powers of the Executive have been growing constantly. It is also, of course, the pretence of every tyrant—"Do not worry about scrutinising us; do not worry about the necessity of going through the time-honoured procedures. We shall not do anything that could be objected to."
I take two specific examples. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 sets out, in Group 4, the devolved powers of the Assembly in regard to housing and the regulation of rents. Let us make a big jump and assume that there is a Labour-controlled Assembly which decides to reduce still further the level of council house rents in Scotland. Let us suppose that the Government of the day in the United Kingdom also happen to be Labour. Would it not be possible for the Secretary of State to argue that, consequent upon the passing of an Assembly Act to reduce the level of council house rents, he could, by Order in Council, alter the law in the United Kingdom about the level of council house rents? I believe that that would


be legally possible under Clause 35 as drafted.
Let us take another possibility. Let us suppose that there were a Conservative Government at Westminster and a Labour Assembly in Edinburgh. Let us suppose, for example, that the Assembly decided to allocate a very substantial part of the block grant towards housing. If the United Kingdom Government and Parliament disapproved of that allocation of the block grant—over which, of course, they would have no control once the allocation had been made—would it not be possible for the Conservative Secretary of State, by order, to say that, in consequence of the Act of the Scottish Assembly allocating vast sums of money to council housing, it was necessary to restrict the power of the Scottish Assembly over the allocation of the block grant or over housing? Could that not also be done under the clause? It could be argued that in consequence of a provision made by or under a Scottish Assembly Act it was desirable to alter this very Bill when it has become an Act. There is power under subsection (1) actually to amend the provisions of "this Act".
The Minister of State may well say that the two illustrations that I have given are far-fetched. I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with the way in which the powers conferred by the clause could be exercised by the Secretary of State, subject only to the possibility of a one-and-a-half-hour debate in the House of Commons and a one-and-a-half-hour debate in another place. If the Minister of State says that the powers will be used only very sparingly and only in very limited circumstances, do we not have a duty to spell out those circumstances in the clause?
The amendment seeks to restrict the circumstances in which the powers conferred by the clause can be exercised. It is because I wish to restrict those powers and to retain the supremacy of this place as a law-making body, going through the proper procedures of Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading, and the responsibility of another place, and not to have merely an Order in Council, that I hope that the Committee will support the amendment.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), with his customary charm and humility, said that he was not a constitutional lawyer of great experience and that he wondered therefore, what would be the effect of the clause. But we do not speak in this Committee as members of one profession or another, or as representing one interest group or another. We speak representing our constituencies, and we speak most of all as Back Benchers, using what powers of common sense we have. One does not need to be a constitutional lawyer of the high standard of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) or of the very high standard of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) to apply one's common sense to the clause. All that is required is some knowledge of the basic motivation of politics and politicians, because it is in the nature of politicians both to take and to abuse power.
It has been obvious from all consideration of the Bill that we are instituting a situation of both instability and uncertainty in the relations between the House of Commons and the proposed Assembly in Scotland. It is plain that in those battles in the future, for which we are providing the battleground, politicians in Scotland will want to extend their power at the expense of the House of Commons. We in this House of Commons, as Back Bench Members, ought to be critical of the situation that will emerge and of the inevitable motives that will be forcing Scottish politicians to blame us and to blame the Union for all their difficulties. Surely the same arguments apply when we, as Back Benchers, consider the actions of the Executive—the actions of all Executives.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) made a plaintive plea referring to the way in which the statutory provisions for the grant of export credit guarantee aid have been so disgracefully abused by the present Administration. He forgets that when he was a Minister in 1972 he supported the Industry Act, and some Back Bench Members from both sides of the House of Commons said that that particular piece of legislation could be and would be abused. No doubt when we consider the details of the Polish ships deal, we


shall find that the Industry Act 1972 has once again been invoked by an Executive for some corrupt political purposes. So if we give power to the Executive—to any Executive—we may be certain that it will be abused.
Let us not look at this subject through the eyes of constitutional lawyers or constitutional historians. Let us look at ourselves and at those whom we know who are practising politicians. It is the desire of every politician to obtain power. Having obtained power, it is usually the practice to retain it by whatever means that politician can use. If we do not circumscribe the never-ending desire for additional power which will be felt by politicians in Scotland and which on occasions may have to be accommodated in the House of Commons, we shall be failing in our duty. Let us, therefore, look at the clause with one object only in mind—to reduce and to circumscribe the power of the Executive so that we as Back Benchers may fulfil our single most important rôle, which is to criticise the Executive.

Mr. Leon Brittan: I have a great deal of sympathy for the anxieties that have been expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) and other of my hon. Friends about the clause and for the amendment by which they have desired to seek to meet the problems that they see in the clause. However, I should like to develop my arguments in relation to that on the next amendment, Amendment No. 430, as time is so short.
On the amendment that we are discussing, I make an observation in response to what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said. As he will know, many of us on the Opposition Benches—indeed, most of us—have the gravest reservations about this whole method of dealing with the problem of devolution. We object not so much to the concept but to this particular scheme. Therefore, criticising the details of the scheme is not in any sense a carping, unsympathetic or negative attempt, but rather a way of combining the very difficult tasks of, on the one hand, pointing out what seem to us to be genuinely the central flaws of a basically flawed approach and, on the other hand, where possible seeking to improve

the Bill in spite of our basic disbelief in the fundamental concept.
Regarding the handling of Clause 35, we believe that perhaps the best course is to consider Amendment No. 430, which I hope even my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury would agree to be a constructive approach to a problem which we think is intractable but which none the less we should like to solve.

Mr. Dalyell: What the hon. Member has just said is an extremely elegant and legalistic way of saying that "We are still sitting on the fence as to whether we on the Opposition Front Bench want an Assembly." Will the hon. Member give me one undertaking—I ask him courteously—that before we come back after Christmas, in the third week of January when we next discuss this matter, it will be revealed to some of us who are curious about these matters whether the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) are in favour of any kind of Assembly in Edinburgh? Perhaps we may be told this as a sort of New Year present.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman does not have to wait until the New Year. Unhappily, I should be out of order if I answered him at length, but if he is really that interested in something that does not arise on the clause, I am prepared to undertake to arrange for him to be sent a copy of an admirable speech made by my right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) at St. Andrew's University.

Mr. Dalyell: I have studied it carefully.

Mr. Brittan: If what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about is not the absence of such a document but his inability to comprehend or agree with it, that will have to be dealt with in another way than a response to an intervention, but if he is genuinely concerned about the absence of the material, that is the material to which I would refer him.

Mr. John Smith: It is proper for Parliament to be cautious about conferring fairly wide powers upon Ministers in any legislation, and I respect the concern shown by some hon. Members.
Before dealing with some specific points of a more legal and constitutional character, I wish to note in passing the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who has done the Committee a great service. I hope that his speech will be studied outside the Committee as well as appreciated inside it, because it indicates that there are in the Conservative Party perceptive people who understand what the whole argument is about. The hon. Gentleman expressed his views extremely well, and I agreed with almost every word he said. It is unusual for me to be able to say that about hon. Members on the other side of the Committee.
I am glad to see all the regular attenders on the Opposition Benches present again. There are those whom I have occasionally called the Bourbons and the "ultras" of the Conservative Party. I do not so describe the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), who is a semi-Bourbon, a St. Andrews-ite, because he clutches on to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), floating as a piece of flotsam on the wreckage of Conservative policies on devolution. I think that the right hon. Gentleman made his speech at the Craw's Nest, Anstruther. He certainly appeared to give some thoughts on devolution at the Craw's Nest.
It is these stray pieces of policy that the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby has to fashion together and weld into a policy of some sort. It is time the right hon. Gentleman returned to the Craw's Nest, perhaps for his New Year holidays, and set out in more detail the Conservative Party's policy on devolution, or perhaps the hon. Gentleman could do it.
I come now to the clause, having felt it right to draw the Committee's attention to the important speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who was rightly rebuked by the hon. Member for Canterbury for seeking to stimulate resentment in England over the constitutional changes proposed in the Bill, put forward the possibility that there could be creeping devolution by the use of the clause. He suggested that the Assembly could extend its own powers and then

a Minister of the United Kingdom Government could use the provisions of the clause to legitimate the change that the Assembly had made—though why a Minister of the United Kingdom Government would wish to do so, I do not know.
As I tried to point out in an intervention, that suggestion is absolutely unfounded as even the most remote theoretical possibility, because it is not a matter for the Assembly what its powers are to be. That is a matter for this Parliament. It would be completely ultra vires for the Assembly to seek in any way to increase its powers, and therefore that absurd proposition does not arise.
But I understand the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) about the fact that a discretion is given to Ministers. However, the right hon. Gentleman underestimates—and I say this with respect, because I understand the concern that prompted his speech—the fact that an affirmative resolution of both Houses is required.
Certainly, there are limitations to the way in which an Order in Council can be debated in the House. It cannot be amended, but it can be rejected. The right hon. Gentleman says that that is not much protection because any Government can sledgehammer an Order in Council through the House by the use of the Whips. I think that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was on the same line of argument. But if that is how a Government will behave, they can behave like that over primary legislation as well.

Mr. Budgen: And they do.

Mr. Smith: That is to take rather a poor view of Parliament. Governments are sustained by Members of Parliament, and it is no excuse for Members to say that they are forced by their Government to do things. There have been rebellions by hon. Members on both sides of the House on many matters, including the Bill. A Government could bulldoze primary legislation through just as effectively. Admittedly, it would be more difficult, because there are more stages, but it could be done. It is very important protection for Parliament that there requires to be an affirmative resolution.
The other important matter, which was noticed by some hon. Members, is that the power in the clause arises only
in consequence of any provision made by or under any Scottish Assembly Act.
Therefore, there must be a Scottish Assembly Act which makes a change in the law before the Order in Council power can be introduced.
The right hon. Member for Crosby, who gave us some lurid examples of muggers moving from Liverpool to Glasgow and back, suggested that the provision could be used to alter the law in England to mirror that in Scotland. I believe that that is a succinct way to put his argument. I beg to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. That would be a substantive change in the law of England. I do not believe that it could be represented by any Minister to be a consequential change. I see no Government having the nerve to try to put through in an Order in Council something of the magnitude of a change in criminal penalties, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The Committee is not helped by being given such far-fetched and unrealistic examples.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not interpret the clause quite as the Minister does. The amendments to the law covered by the clause are to be made in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Assembly, but once that Act has been passed what matters is the opinion of the Minister here as to whether it is "necessary or expedient" to make them. It is a matter not of whether the amendments are consequential but whether it is "necessary or expedient" to make them because there is an Act of the Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Smith: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point, but it is important to establish that the matter can arise only if there has been an Act of the Scottish Assembly. We are agreed on that.
Then we come to the words "necessary or expedient". As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, they have been commonly used in legislation. Indeed, they were used in legislation that the right hon. Gentleman put through, such as the Local Government Act 1972. There were similar provisions in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The words used were "necessary or proper", but

there is not much difference between the two phrases.
Parliament must have confidence that the Administration will use the powers with some respect for the purposes for which they are given. In almost every Act there are Order in Council or Statutory Instrument provisions fenced with such words.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Minister has given examples of the use of the words "necessary or expedient" in legislation relating to Orders in Council made consequential upon an Act of this House and carrying out the purposes of the Act. The order with which the clause deals is not quite the same. It is based on a Minister's judgment as to whether the order is consequential. The matter is not laid down in the statute, as in the case the hon. Gentleman quoted.

Mr. Smith: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point in that regard. I think that this is a different provision from that which commonly appears in Acts of Parliament. But these are not strange and unusual words to appear in a Bill or in a statute. I would not want to make too much of the fact that a similar provision appears in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, but I am entitled to make something of the fact that it appears in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
I looked up the Official Report to see how the clause was dealt with, having been struck by the almost complete similarity between Section 38(2) of that Act and what is in the Bill. I wanted to see how Parliament handled it. I found that there was almost no discussion of the matter. I do not know whether Parliament was sleeping on that occasion. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Crosby seems to think that one cannot make much of that. Certainly there was an emergency atmosphere, but, none the less, the Government of the day must have considered the matter.
It must have been considered at least by the relevant Ministers. They must have recognised that there was a problem and that in case the Northern Ireland Assembly made a change in the law, it would be useful to have a consequential provision enabling the law to be changed


in England. It was no doubt felt that there ought to be a clause enabling it to be done by Order in Council.
The Government have arrived at the same conclusion. I was going to say that it cannot be so terribly wicked for us to be doing it if the previous Government did it, but that argument may have a logical fault in it. However, I am prepared to give the previous Government the benefit of the doubt on this matter.
This is not the first devolution Bill to come before the House of Commons. The House of Commons very recently passed a devolution measure. I refer, of course, to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The Conservatives were the first to carry through a devolution Bill in the House of Commons. We do not give them enough tribute for that. It is the fact that they are not sustaining the progress achieved on that occasion that is a matter for criticism.
There has to be some confidence that United Kingdom Ministers will not abuse the fairly broad powers given under this provision. What the Government have in mind is principally to bring the law up to date on matters where Scottish Assembly legislation bites deeper into the devolved matters and where differences emerge. It will be necessary, particularly in regard to the law on non-devolved matters pertaining to Scotland, to make consequential changes, as the names of institutions change and as policies diverge, in order to dovetail United Kingdom legislation which operates in Scotland together with Assembly legislation. That is our intention, and we have no nefarious purpose in putting this clause forward.
Parliament is, of course, entitled to be suspicious of the Executive, but most Executives have to come forward with fairly broad provisions of this sort, and at the end of the day Parliament must trust the good intention of Ministers.—[Interruption.] I notice that when right hon. Gentlemen leave Administrations they become much more critical than when they are members of them.

Mr. Graham Page: I think that I caught the Minister's words correctly when he spoke of an extension of non-devolved matters. I think he said that

Scottish Assembly legislation might dig deep into devolved matters and make necessary consequential changes in non-devolved matters. This is a very serious point. The hon. Gentleman has been arguing that the Scottish Assembly could only deal with devolved matters and that therefore—

Mr. Smith: I did not intend to convey any meaning of that sort. If I did, I apologise. There will have to be consequential changes made in the laws for which this Parliament is responsible. For example, there would have to be changes in legislation if certain institutions to which reference is made were abolished. It would be sensible to make consequential changes in that respect.
I ask the Committee to consider the practical problems which would arise if we did not have such a provision. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby I think recognised this. If we do not have this provision, we shall have to have primary legislation every time we want to make a minor change in the law. Maybe the United Kingdom Parliament will not give such a change priority. There will then be a very untidy situation. The provision in the Bill is fenced by the authority of Parliament. Parliament must approve it affirmatively. That is a major safeguard and a sensible provision to have.
I naturally accept that there is legitimate concern whenever such a provision is put forward by any Administration. I ask the Committee to accept the good faith of the Government in putting it forward. It is not intended to make major changes in the law but to make minor consequential amendments. I know that the powers here are drafted fairly widely but nevertheless I ask the House to accept our good faith in this respect.
6.0 p.m.
I have considered with some interest the submission of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I do not think that the point he makes is a major one, although no doubt we shall return to it when we get to Schedule 10. I think that we have managed to define fairly precisely in the Bill what is to be devolved. That is why there is such complexity in the schedules and why we have specified particular sections in


particular Acts of Parliament. Indeed, the criticism has often been made that the Bill is unnecessarily complex. Complexity is the price of precision in this matter. My hon. Friend was entitled to raise the matter and he can test it for himself later when we come to deal with the devolved matters.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 430, in page 16, line 16, leave out
'(including any provision contained in this Act)'.
We on the Conservative side take the strongest exception to a provision, such as Clause 35, which enables the law of the United Kingdom to be altered by a simple resolution of Parliament just because a particular Scottish Assembly Act has been passed. Such a provision is, in the strongest sense of the term, totally unnecessary. If the Government are able to persuade Parliament that, as a result of Acts passed by the Scottish Assembly, it is necessary to make changes in the law of the United Kingdom, there is absolutely no reason at all why the Government should not come to the House and seek legislation of a primary kind by normal Act of Parliament to change the law of the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State has argued that the purpose of the power is innocent and innocuous and that therefore it is convenient that the law of the United Kingdom should be changed in minor respects from time to time, as a result of Scottish Assembly Acts, by the simple procedure of an order approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. I took note of the Minister's words, which were very significant in illustrating the Government's approach to the problem. He said that if a whole series of changes of a consequential and minor kind were necessary in the law of the United Kingdom because of what the Scottish Assembly had done, to require such changes to be made by Act of Parliament would produce an untidy situation. I accept that it would be an untidy situation, but it is much better to have that than one which causes the sorts of anxieties and potential difficulties which are involved in the clause.
I give the Minister the credit of accepting that in his mind—and possibly in the mind of the Government—there is no intention whatsoever to use the clause in a way which would involve major changes in the law of the United Kingdom. But the potential is there, and if the only purpose of the clause is to avoid an untidy situation arising I say to the Minister of State that surely, in order to allay the anxieties which have been expressed generally and sincerely by Opposition Members, an untidy situation would be a small price to pay. There are worse things in that situation than untidiness. Anxieties about an apparently innocent and innocuous provision being used for purposes for which it was not intended but for which it is capable of being used comprise a much worse situation than merely administrative or constitutional untidiness.
It is in that context that I turn to the point made by the Minister of State from what has now become his favourite bedside reading—the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973—which he prays in aid whenever possible. It is a very good illustration of exactly the point that I am making.
In the situation of the Government of Northern Ireland and provisions made by this House in relation to Northern Ireland the anxieties that I have referred to—and which have been expressed by my hon. Friends—quite understandably were not nearly as great as they are in the case of the Scotland Bill. The clear view of the people of Northern Ireland is, has been, and I hope will continue to be, in favour of the Union with the United Kingdom as, indeed, it is in Scotland. But the legislative power when it has existed in Northern Ireland has always been used in the sense of cementing the Union. Wholly different considerations and anxieties arise with regard to the Scotland Bill.
I am, of course, conscious of the fact that in expressing opposition to the procedure whereby the law of the United Kingdom can be changed in order to avoid an untidy situation coming into existence one is going to the root of Clause 35. What I am proposing is only an amendment. But the real objection to the procedure is that the Government


have to present the House with something on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
I would draw the attention of the Minister of State to a slightly uncomfortable example of the difference between passing a Bill through Parliament and getting an order through Parliament. I refer to the Scotland and Wales Bill in the last Session. If it had just been a question of getting a resolution of the House, it would have sailed through. But it was precisely when it was subjected to the full parliamentary procedure of amendment and the scrutiny that flowed from that that the defects of the Bill became apparent to the House as a whole and further consideration of the Bill became impossible and the Bill not acceptable. A distinction has to be made.
But although that applies to the whole of Clause 35, I am proposing a modest amendment rather than the elimination of Clause 35 at the moment. It is to exclude the phrase:
(including any provision contained in this Act)".
Very special considerations apply to those words. We must remember that in this Bill we are creating a constitution. We are creating a constitution for a form of devolved government in Scotland. It is idle to pretend that it is anything other than a constitution. Most constitutions in other countries, particularly federal constitutions, are in some way entrenched. They are entrenched because special procedures are necessary to alter those constitutions. The agreement of both constituent parts, special majorities of two-thirds or three-quarters, or a whole range of entrenchments, are to be found in every constitution whereby there has to be a special sort of procedure when it is altered. In most countries constitutions cannot just be altered in the same way that we can alter an Act of Parliament.
But if Clause 35 stands we shall have a situation in which this constitution enacted in the Scotland Bill is not only not entrenched but is put in a weaker position than an ordinary Act of Parliament. The words which I am seeking to persuade the House to delete mean that the Scotland Bill itself—the creator of the constitution and the formulation of the constitution of the devolved Scotland—may be amended by a provision merely

designed to tidy up and, as the Minister of State said, to prevent an untidy situation.
Whatever justification there may be for avoiding the bore of the Government having a sort of annual bits and pieces measure to make such consequential changes as are needed in the Government of the United Kingdom because of what the Scottish Assembly has done in the last year, there can be no justification for actually allowing by an order approved by resolution in each House the very constitution of devolved Scotland to be altered. That is what is happening.
This provision then, instead of entrenching that situation by some kind of special provision, is actually enabling the constitution of devolved Scotland to be altered by a simpler, more Draconian and quicker procedure than the passage of an ordinary Act of Parliament about drains, housing, or education. That is a fantastic proposition. It seems to me that merely by talking about it as being
necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision made by or under any Scottish Assembly Act.
does not alter the fact that by the inclusion of the words in brackets it is possible by resolution of this House actually to amend the Scotland Bill itself.
I know of no other constitution—I am not talking about the Northern Ireland Act, I am talking about other constitutions—in which it is possible to alter the constitution itself by a simpler and quicker procedure than the one by which ordinary legislation is enacted. Whatever need there may be for this power in relation to ordinary legislation, it seems to me that it is of quite a different order of magnitude to allow the constitution of Scotland to be altered by simple resolution.
I appreciate that it has to be in the view of a Minister of the Crown and of the House as a result of a provision in a Scottish Assembly Act that the House is invited to consider that it is necessary or expedient to change the constitution. But that is no protection, because it means that within the devolved sphere the Scottish Assembly can pass an Act which is clearly intra vires, dealing with some matter at the boundary or at the border of its powers, but plainly within its powers. It could then attempt to persuade the Government of the United


Kingdom that, as a result of the changes being made by the Scottish Assembly Act, it is clear that the limitations on the powers of the Assembly contained in this Bill are out of date—and, perhaps, have become untidy—and that therefore a change is necessary in the Scotland Bill itself.
Therefore, inch by inch the frontiers can be extended in this fantastic way whereby a constitution itself can be amended by a procedure simpler than that of enacting ordinary legislation. I ask the Minister of State to consider this amendment seriously and to accept the view that even if he must have Clause 35—which we strongly oppose—genuine anxieties could be to some extent allayed by the removal of a provision permitting the constitution of Scotland to be changed by a simple resolution of the House.

Mr. John Smith: I intervene briefly because it is important that I set out the Government's position. I shall do so succinctly.
I follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments, which are classic, constitutional-style arguments. But, with respect, I feel that he has underestimated two things. First, it is not such an easy hurdle to get an Order in Council through both Houses of Parliament if it seeks to make any major change. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman appeared to ignore almost entirely the fact that this part of the clause as, indeed, the whole of the first part of the clause, comes into operation only
in consequence of any provision made by or under any Scottish Assembly Act".
That condition precedent must be satisfied before an Order in Council can be made.
I give one practical reason why it would be a useful provision for a Minister to have, subject to the approval of this Parliament. In Part III of Schedule 10, hon. Members will see that one of the techniques that we have used to define what is devolved is to list a number of Acts of Parliament and to specify which powers under certain sections are devolved to the Assembly. As the Scottish Assembly passes legislation which bites into the corpus of existing legislation, there will be a need to bring all this up to date—for example, to make changes in the detail. We do not want a special Act of Parliament passed through both

Houses to note the fact that certain of the Acts have been abolished or amended.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: The hon. Gentleman has twice used the phrase "both Houses of Parliament" and suggested that that might be a safeguard. However, is it not part of the policy of his party that one of those Houses is to be abolished or weakened? In fact, the safeguard is likely to be dependent upon one House of Parliament and not both.

Mr. Smith: That is a matter for the future. I am dealing with the present constitutional position, and I am entitled to draw attention to the fact that any legislation must go through both Houses.

Mr. Brittan: As I understand it, on Schedule 10 the Minister is saying that it may be that some of the enactments listed in the schedule will themselves be repealed or that new ones will appear on the United Kingdom statute book which need to be included in Schedule 3. The answer to that is simple. Any such procedure necessarily involves legislation in the House of Commons. Therefore, there is no reason why such legislation should not itself contain the consequential changes in the Scotland Act to have the effect that the Minister wishes.

Mr. Smith: There might possibly be something which could be done in terms of United Kingdom legislation where the powers are retained by the United Kingdom Parliament. But it would not apply to Acts named here where powers had been devolved to the Scottish Assembly. Therefore, that solution would not be apt in that case.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As I understand the provisions of Clause 35 as drafted, it would be possible for the Assembly to change anything in the Bill, when it has been passed—either in powers devolved or in powers not devolved—and then, if necessary, the Government could say that they accepted it and they could deal with it purely by Order in Council, thereby negating the effect of Clause 36.

Mr. Smith: With respect, my hon. Friend is wrong about that. In the Bill there is no power to the Scottish Assembly to amend the provisions of the Bill.


Therefore, the necessary condition precedent would not arise.

Mr. Dalyell: I may nave misunderstood what my hon. Friend said, but he used the words "bites into the corpus of existing legislation". If existing legislation in the House of Commons is bitten into, does not that mean consequential action in this House? It is not possible to bite into the corpus of existing legislation without taking action both in the Scottish Assembly and in the House of Commons.

Mr. Smith: It is perfectly possible. If under the Housing Acts, which are Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, powers for housing are devolved and given to the Scottish Assembly and the Assembly makes changes, those changes are effected by legislation passed in the Assembly without reference to the United Kingdom Parliament, because the powers have been devolved.
But there are some Acts of Parliament which are specified in Part III, where there are provisions which are devolved and others which are not devolved. Therefore, it is wiser to have this provision. Where there is a certain breadth in these provisions, it is always open to Opposition Members to point out that it is possible to drive a coach and horses through them. However, I do not think that this is a situation which is likely to arise. We need fairly broad provisions so that we can bring the Act up to date and keep it up to date with proper references in it.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) asks "If you want to do that, why not bring a Bill before Parliament?" We all know the existing mess that there is with miscellaneous law reform Acts where we have all sort of bits and pieces of reform collected in a lot of different Nets together. It is very difficult for lawyers, never mind the ordinary public, to find their way about them. I should like the Scotland Act to be brought up to date regularly by the use of this provision. That is the purpose behind this proposal.
I remind the Committee of two important matters. First, it has to be in consequence of something which the Assembly has done. Secondly, there is the important and real protection of an

affirmative resolution in each House of Parliament.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I can see that the hon. Gentleman's argument would be valid against the previous amendment which the Committee considered. However, this amendment is to omit
including any provision contained in this Act".
The hon. Gentleman cannot need that phrase if Schedule 10 requires consequential changes in United Kingdom legislation. He can need that change only to add to or subtract from that phrase in Schedule 10 itself.

Mr. Smith: The provisions of Schedule 10 could be changed by activities of the United Kingdom Parliament. They could also be changed by activities of the Scottish Assembly operating in devolved matters.
It is open to hon. Members to say that this is a broad provision. Of course, it is. But it is a sensible one, because we have to look at it from the point of view not just of the classic arguments about the constitution but of making this Act a useful and effective tool. There will be changes. Legislation will be passed both here and in the Assembly, and it will require changes to be made, especially in areas like Part III of Schedule 10. It seems to me sensible that powers should be given to change that.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby spoke haughtily about the need for tidiness. We need to have a little more tidiness in our statute book. It is not the most important consideration, but it should not be ignored completely. This will be a very important Act. It is not a fundamental one, but it is one which will have to be studied both by Members of the Assembly and by the United Kingdom Government. It may have to be interpreted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This provision is entirely justified, and I think that I have given a good reason why it should be accepted. I hope that that good reason will be taken into account by the Committee.

Sir David Renton: I suggest that the Minister should give an undertaking to the Committee to think again about this matter. Despite the


clarity of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has fully grasped the full implications of the amendment.
We are dealing with a major constitutional Bill. In a Bill like this, we ought to get the principles right once and for all, even if at some later stage some of the detail contained in Schedule 10, for example, may have to be varied. I remind the hon. Gentleman that sometimes detail has to be varied even in a major Bill.
The words which the Minister has put into Clause 35 would enable both the principles and the detail to be amended, whereas he wants only the detail amended. I should have thought that, in order to get the detail amended, he ought to follow the many precedents that there are in various types of legislation which enable Ministers to lay Statutory Instruments before the House, sometimes with affirmative resolutions and sometimes with negative resolutions, so that the detail may be brought up to date. To claim, however, that this wide power to alter any of the provisions of the Act, even if they deal with important principles, should be obtained for use by Order in Council seems to me to be quite wrong.
I notice, and it is rather significant, that in replying just now to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby the Minister of State did not refer to Section 38 of the Northern Ireland Act or any part of it. It is significant and very natural that he did not do so, because the Northern Ireland Act does not contain these words.
This idea of amendment by Order in Council is relatively new. It was first used for facilitating consolidation of Acts in 1973, passed by the previous Conservative Government—the National Health Service Reorganisation Act, Section 57, and the Pensioners Payments and National Insurance Act, Section 7. Both Acts specify that, to facilitate consolidation, amendments could be put forward by Order in Council, but our Committee on Legislation recommended that they should be subject to two conditions—affirmative resolution, which is conceded by the Government here, and that the

relevant order should be reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Although we are dealing here with something much more important than consolidation, the Government have not contemplated making that second proviso. It could have been made. In view of these fresh considerations and what has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby, I hope that this is a matter in which the Government will not be tied down to an immediate decision.
This is a much more difficult and important matter than it appears to be at first sight. I hope that for once the Minister of State will agree that this is something from which he would benefit if he were given a chance to look at it again.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I understand perfectly the necessity for having some provision whereby it is not required that every time a change is made by the Scottish Assembly on an Act covering the whole of the United Kingdom—a change of some particular issue relating to Scotland—the Government should not have to bring forward primary legislation.
I am far from being a legal expert, and even less a constitutional expert, but I have always understood that the law is not as commonsense people understand it but as it is written and interpreted in the courts. The more the Government try to tidy up the Bill, the greater the minefield into which they stray.
I have assumed that the provisions of all Government legislation work because they have some specific purpose. The words in Clause 35 are:
any such amendments of the law of the United Kingdom or any part of it (including any provision contained in this Act)".
Why is "this Act" specifically referred to? I think it is unnecessary in any case. If one talks about an amendment to the United Kingdom law or any Part of it, the words about "this Act" are redundant.
Quite apart from that, by putting in these specific words we are encouraging the Assembly, if and when it is set up, to try to tinker with the Act. The Minister of State tells us, quite properly, that there are parts which say that the Assembly


can act only within the specific competence set out in Clause 19. Clause 19 states:
A Scottish Assembly Act shall be law only if or to the extent that it is within the legislative competence of the Assembly.
Clause 19 refers to Schedule 2, which spells out all the things that are within and without the competence of the Assembly. In Schedule 2, on page 42, paragraph 7 states:
A provision is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly if its effect would be to amend this Act.
The Government cannot have it both ways. Clause 35 refers to
any provision contained in the Act ",
which means any part of the Act. It seems to me that there is a conflict here which has not been tidied up. In fact, this seems to make it worse. Is the Minister saying that Schedule 2 and Clause 19 totally override Clause 35 and any part of it? As it is, Clause 35 stands as an equal part of the Bill, and there is no distinction in terms of importance, relevance or competence. Therefore, I think it is necessary to remove these words, as they refer to
any provision made by or under any Scottish Assembly Act.
If we take that out, we remove the possibility suggested by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby that the Assembly could perhaps, not in a dramatic way but gradually, change its powers and competence.
6.30 p.m.
I can foresee the possibility whereby the Assembly makes a change in Schedule 10 to bring within its competence a fairly minor matter, and the Government would say that it was easier to allow this change of the law. It would not be worth a candle to have all the hoo-ha at Westminster or to invoke Clause 36 or subsequent clauses especially if, like Parkinson's law, people who are here, after the Assembly, will not have time on their hands, and the amount of legislation will expand to fill the gap. I can see the Government saying that, on a strict interpretation of the Act, the Assembly is acting out of competence in dealing with the issue. However, they would probably add that they would let it go because they did not want a fuss and, after all, it was a

sensible thing to do anyway, because the Assembly had exposed a loophole.
However, if the Government let it go in that manner a precedent will have been set. What happens if the Assembly tries drastically to change its powers or move beyond an Assembly into some form of home rule? To me, a complete layman, it is wholly confusing and will lead to conflict. I understand that the Government want to avoid conflict, yet here they are certainly tempting the Assembly to try its hand a bit.

Mr. John Smith: I intervene very briefly to deal with the point put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). The Committee may find my intervention of some assistance.
I stress one point about the breadth of the clause. It has been made out to be too wide a provision. I remind the Committee that the Scottish Assembly Act is a condition precedent to the clause coming into effect.
Secondly, a Scottish Assembly Act must be intra vires the Scotland Act. Constitutionally, the provisions of this Act cannot be changed. That is understood by the Committee. But I have given as examples the detailed changes in the Act required to bring it up to date.
Criticism has been made that it has been drawn too widely. I cannot see how we can easily draw it more narrowly. I have listened very carefully to what has been said and I doubt whether it is possible to narrow the clause. If hon. Members want to test it in the Division Lobbies, they should not be dissuaded. If this amendment is carried the words will be in the Bill no longer.
I am willing to listen and to look at what has been said, but I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about my commitment. If there is concern about the breadth of the clause, I shall look at it and see whether it can be narrowed. I say that before taking any skilled advice, but personally I do not see how it could be done easily.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Will the Minister explain a matter that puzzles me? Is it possible for the Scottish Assembly to take action affecting any of


the legislation listed in Schedule 10 as excluded from enactments applying to Scotland? Schedule 10 sets out various Acts relating to devolved powers, but certain Acts, which on the face of them seem to have a good deal to do with devolved powers, such as the Community Land Act, are not included in the list. In other words, could the Assembly pass an Act affecting matters not included in Schedule 10?

Mr. Smith: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to ask me something related to what I was saying, which was why I gave way to him. However, let me point out that the Scottish Assembly will have power to change the law in certain devolved areas which are defined in the schedule and referred to in various Acts of Parliament. If there are no powers in the Scottish Assembly to change any of those matters, it cannot do so. We must look carefully at the provisions of the Bill to see whether in any case power is devolved.

Mr. John Stokes: I have listened carefully to the Minister of State on almost every day that we have discussed this Bill. We all like and admire the urbanity with which he deals with anything that comes along, but if we look behind his manner we note that he has not made any concessions. So far he has not accepted one amendment, and obviously he does not intend to do so. Therefore, behind the urbanity we see the mailed fist.
I am glad to see that the Lord President is present in the Committee, because he has hardly been present at all. Indeed, even as I speak I see that he is leaving. However, I am delighted to see the Lord Advocate paying one of his visits to the Committee. I have the greatest admiration for the Lord Advocate and, although he has not said anything in this discussion, I am sure that he must be thinking very deeply indeed. Probably he is very worried about some of these provisions.
Once again the Committee finds itself in a muddle on the Bill. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). In this clause we are trying to limit the legislative powers of the proposed Assembly to ensure that they do not conflict with this Parliament or, in vulgar parlance, turn the British constitution into a pig's breakfast.
Time and again as we consider the clauses of the Bill we come up against the insuperable difficulty of trying to create a new subordinate legislative Assembly in one part of a unitary kingdom while at the same time being under an omnipotent United Kingdom Parliament. There is no answer to this insoluble conundrum, and if it were not subject to a guillotine this measure would never have a chance of getting through Parliament.
I notice that there are now a few more hon. Members on the Government Benches than usual, and at one time this afternoon their numbers almost reached double figures. It is remarkable how few Labour Members have taken any interest in these proceedings, and occasionally a stray SNP Member takes part. I believe that the Bill must be one of the least liked and least supported measures that have come before Parliament this century. If Labour Members had not been dragooned by the Whips to go into the Lobbies, I believe that they would never have come along at all but would have been happier to stay away.
To return to the clause and the amendment, one can pretend that we in this Chamber will seek to confine and control acts by the Assembly which, regrettably, we are trying to set up. Once that Assembly is in being, however, we all know that it is bound to demand greater and greater powers for itself. Parliament has already gone on the defensive in this matter. We have lost the will to win, and the Scottish Assembly will arrogate to itself more and more powers and will come to glory at the expense of this ancient House of Commons. We in this exercise—an exercise which may be overturned by referendum—are engaged on a hopeless task.
I agree that it is our duty as the Opposition—and it is a duty which we are carrying out very well—to try to control and bind the Assembly as much as we can. That is why I support the amendment. In my heart of hearts, I know, as do other hon. Members, that there is no solution to the conflict and confusion of the Bill, unless on Third Reading hon. Members vote with their consciences and kill it.
My constituents are beginning to ask themselves whether they are prepared to


have our country's laws altered to suit the Scottish Assembly. The Committee knows my love of history, and I have been looking back seeking to find a parallel with the extraordinary situation with which we now find ourselves faced. We are trying to devolve a constitution in a State which does not have a constitution.

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member is not confining himself to the amendment. He is making what appears to be a Second Reading speech. I judge by the hon. Member's smile that he knows that full well. I think some reason for the larger attendance in the Chamber is that too many hon. Members are not confining themselves to the matter under discussion.

Mr. Stokes: I always pay great attention to your comments, Sir Myer. I end by saying that on the last occasion when Parliament was involved in a great constitutional struggle which affected the whole future of England it was said—perhaps, Sir Myer, you will forgive me if I translate the Latin into English—"We do not wish to change the laws of England".

Mr. Francis Pym: When the Minister of State intervened the second time, we hoped that he would do so in a helpful sense. At first, when we heard his words we thought that he was about to be helpful, but he couched his words in lukewarm terms. Indeed, he does not appear to have given any undertaking at all. He even admitted that his intervention might not be helpful. He said that if the Committee voted to knock out these words, the Committee would have to take note of that, as would the Government.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will intervene the third time and say that he will take this matter away and genuinely re-examine these provisions, taking into consideration the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). It would be only on that basis that it would be possible for us not to press this matter to a Division.
6.45 p.m.
I am mindful of the fact that we still have a major clause, Clause 36, which as yet has been totally undiscussed but is central and is a matter of constitutional importance. If the Minister were able to give that absolutely clear and categorical undertaking, it might be possible to spend a few minutes on the clause, but if he sticks to the lukewarm phraseology of his earlier intervention I doubt that he will carry the Committee, because what he had to say was not terribly convincing. Will the Minister be much more authoritative and categorical in what he intends to do?

Mr. John Smith: It always happens that in Committee this kind of bargaining session between Opposition spokesmen and Ministers takes place. I have thought about this carefully, and I must make absolutely clear that I do not accept the fundamental argument which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). The clause is much more limited than they suggested, for reasons which I spelt out in my second intervention. I have not changed my mind on that.
However, the point has been made that the clause is possibly drawn too widely for the purposes for which we wanted it, and I am willing to look at that. But I do not want hon. Members to be under any misapprehension that they gave up the opportunity for voting for their amendment because of my assurances. Assurances given by Ministers which cause hon. Members to change their conduct and not to vote are dangerous, and one must be careful. I am sorry if that is not enough. I have said that I have listened carefully and shall read the speeches to see whether it would be possible for this essential power to be made narrower.
I doubt that the amendment, if it were accepted, would achieve that result. However, whatever the result of the Division, I shall look at the matter. If hon. Members feel that what I have said does not go far enough, that is too bad and they had better protect their position in the Lobbies.

Mr. William Ross: I am more than slightly bemused by these


exchanges, because I had thought that we were dealing with an amendment.

The First Deputy Chairman: We are dealing with Amendment No. 430, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to draw the attention of the Committee to that.

Mr. Ross: I am astounded at the range of the debate. Some have talked about history and others about limiting the powers of the Assembly and all the rest of it. Let us look at the amendment. It states:
(including any provision contained in this Act)".
What would be the effect of the amendment? The words would now read:
Her Majesty may by Order in Council make any such amendments of the law of the United Kingdom or any part of it (including any provision contained in this Act)".
If we pass the Bill, it will be part of the law of the United Kingdom. I do not want to make many or long speeches. I shall make my speeches to the point. What would be the effect of the amendment? Would it have any effect at all?

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister say why these words are necessary? I doubt that they would do anything, and I want to know why he put them in.

Mr. Dalyell: I feel dismayed, because it is not only Clause 36, Amendment No. 117, and the whole issue of expediency—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. As the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) reminded the Committee, we are dealing with Amendment No. 430. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock read out exactly what that amendment contains and its limitations.

Mr. Dalyell: In that case, I merely want to say that, although I am not criticising the Chair, there is a great deal that should certainly be discussed, including the alteration of the whole basis of the power of the Secretary of State, the issue of Orkney and Shetland, Amendment No. 440 and the possible incompatibility with the EEC and the Judicial Committee. I hope that the House of Lords will look at these matters when the Bill is considered there.
I wish to make only two points. Much has been said about the Irish parallel—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was helpful to the Chair yesterday. If he refers to Hansard, he will find that he said that the Chair ought to be tougher concerning the relevance of contributions. I am following his advice.

Mr. Dalyell: Then I ask just one question. The amendment refers to whether the Bill, when passed, is to be sacrosanct. I consulted the learned Clerks this morning, and the sanctity issue was one of those that came up on this amendment. I ask the Minister whether, given the political situation, it is realistic to suggest that such legislation should be sacrosanct, especially when we note that the political situation deeply concerns the destination of the oil revenues. Given Scottish politics, is it realistic to think that this kind of clause can limit an Assembly many Members of which would be committed to altering the basis of the legislation and claiming the oil revenues?

Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked a direct question. He is absolutely right. It would make no difference if one took out these provisions. They are there in order to avoid doubt. It is essential to avoid doubt. It is honest to put them in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was a million miles wide of the point. He keeps referring to the oil revenues, but it is not within the legislative capacity of the Assembly to do anything about oil revenues. Such power could be given only by the United Kingdom Parliament. That is why the clause could be operated only following the passing of a Scottish Assembly Act. An Act must be one that is within the competence of the Assembly to pass and, since the Assembly would have no legislative competence in this matter, my hon. Friend's point was not relevant. I do not know what he meant by "sanctity" of an Act of Parliament. Parliament can change any Act. There are not two categories of Acts, those which are sanctified and those which are not. I do not understand what my hon. Friend meant.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I shall be brief. My remarks will be in the context of what I said earlier. If it is the case that if the amendment were carried it


would lead to doubt, is there not a practical problem that Acts of the Scottish Assembly might—simply because they could not put into effect the necessary consequential amendments to United Kingdom legislation—be left on the shelf until such time as Westminster got round to passing an enabling Act to make the minor changes required?
Pertinent statements have been made today. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) rightly said that the business of the House would expand to fill the time available. One can think immediately of EEC business which needs more attention. It might be difficult for the Leader of the House to find sufficient time for the small measures that might be necessary, and so Scottish Acts might be left to gather dust. That would be a recipe for friction if delays were to arise as a result of the amendment preventing an Order in Council to make the necessary consequential changes.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 158, Noes 201.

[For Division List No. 38 see c. 1521]

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [22nd November], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Seven o'clock.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 191, Noes 155.

[For Division List No. 39 see c. 1523]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

POWER TO MOVE REJECTION OF CERTAIN ASSEMBLY BILLS

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 173. Noes 170.

[For Division List No. 40 see c. 1527]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

POWER TO PREVENT OR REQUIRE ACTION

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 173, Noes 136.

[For Division List No. 41 see c. 1529]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

POWER TO REVOKE SUBORDINATE INSTRUMENTS

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 171, Noes 101.

[For Division List No. 42 see c. 1531]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I should like to bring to your attention the situation in which the Committee finds itself as a result of the guillotine having fallen at this time. I appreciate that the Committee is operating under the terms of a resolution passed by the House, but that does not alter the fact that we all feel that we have been put in an extremely difficult position because so many extremely important matters have not been discussed.
The last three votes were on whether Clauses 36, 37 and 38 should stand part of the Bill. The only way in which we could make any kind of protest about the non-debate of those clauses and the


non-consideration of any amendments to them was by voting against the clauses as a whole.

Mr. John Smith: Ah!

Mr. Pym: The Minister of State might well say "Ah!". The fact remains, however, that none of these matters has been debated. How else can one make any kind of protest except by voting as we have done? The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we intended to try to amend the three clauses. He laughs, but this is no laughing matter. When the European Communities Bill was before the Committee, no substantive constitutional issues were raised in the clauses, and in any case each clause was given ample time for debate under the guillotine procedure.
Through you, Mr. Godman Irvine, I invite the Leader of the House to come here and state whether he will consider the new position of the Committee. We have not discussed Clause 36, dealing with the overriding powers of the United Kingdom Government on Bills, or the overriding powers of Government and Execuptive orders. Nor have we been able to discuss the vires position of Executive orders affecting Community matters. Nor have we been able to discuss the number and rôle of Scots Members in the House of Commons, the problem of single-Chamber legislation and the position that another place is to be put into as a result of our not being able to discuss these matters.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. None of these matters can possibly be for the Chair, and the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. I am confident that the words he has uttered will have been heard in certain quarters, and it may be that some action will be taken.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I distinctly heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) say that he wished, through you, to invite the Leader of the House to come here and consider—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have no control over the Leader of the House.

Sir Timothy Kitson: Further to that point of order—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. There is not a point of order so far. Unless the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, it would be best to use the time for debate.

Sir T. Kitson: We are in difficult circumstances, Mr. Godman Irvine. In the last hour, we have had five Divisions. A number of hon. Members are situated in the Norman Shaw building. We have no lifts, and I think that a Division time of eight minutes is intolerable. The period should in the circumstances be extended. I gather that one lift is working in the building. It is only right and proper that you should discuss with Mr. Speaker whether there should not be an extension to the time allowed for a Division, because we cannot go on like this.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. This is a matter which is within the discretion of the Chair, and it has been exercised in accordance with whether or not there have been Divisions and whether or not people are around the Chamber. There have been occasions when as much as three minutes extra have been allowed so that people at the top end of Norman Shaw would be able to get here.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Since the situation in which the Government invited the House to approve the timetable motion has now wholly changed, because it was never within the contemplation of the Government that we should pass whole clauses without any debate at all, could you advise us what protective powers you have in order to safeguard our rights and ensure that we do not go on—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am the servant of the House. Once the report of the Business Committee has been agreed to, I have to carry out the wishes of the House.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. It might be of assistance to the House if it can be pointed out to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) that all this blustering


cannot alter the fact that the Conservative Party voted against the override powers.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I am not absolutely certain whether we are to have longer time for Divisions. If we are, it means that we shall have less time for debate. Could not the people in Norman Shaw come over here in anticipation of a Division and then wait, as it is always on the hour every four hours?

The Second Deputy Chairman: The fact that there is additional time before the door is locked does not necessarily mean that there will be any less time for debate.

Mr. Pym: I do not rise to a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine, but before we embark on Clause 39 may I draw the attention of the Government to, and ask for a reply on, what appears to be a mistake in the Bill which is germane to Clause 39? The clause deals, among other things, with the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975. That Act is referred to in Schedule 10, which deals with matters within the legislative competence of the Assembly and within the powers of the Scottish Executive—indeed, it says so in its heading. But the heading to Part III of Schedule 10 is
Enactments Relating to the Groups in Part I".
8.0 p.m.
On page 66 of the Bill the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 is mentioned. At the bottom of that page, in sub-paragraph (i), it will be observed that Section 18 of that Act is included. If one then turns over to the next page, one finds that Schedule 11 is headed
Matters Within Powers of Scottish Executive but not Within Legislative Competence of Assembly".
Then, under Group D, in line 27 one finds the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 again mentioned. At the top of page 69, in paragraph 2(ix), one sees the powers under Section 18 included.
In other words, Section 18 of the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 is included in the Bill under the schedule which is headed
Matters within Legislative Competence of Assembly, and within Powers of Scottish Executive".

and also in the schedule headed
Matters Within Powers of Scottish Executive but not Within Legislative Competence of Assembly.
I should like to know which of those is correct before we embark on an amendment relating to the Scottish Development Agency.

Mr. John Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I think that I can assist the right hon. Gentleman. Schedule 10 deals with the environmental functions of the Scottish Development Agency, over which there will be legislative competence. Section 18 is mentioned in error in Schedule 11. It should be in Schedule 10 only. I hope that that assists the right hon. Gentleman. The Government will certainly see that the error is corrected.

Clause 39

INDUSTRIAL AND ECONOMIC GUIDELINES

Mr. Raison: I beg to move Amendment No. 346, in page 19, line 29, leave out 'prepare guidelines' and insert 'issue directions'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take Amendment No. 348, in page 20, line 21, leave out 'guidelines' and insert 'directions'.

Mr. Raison: We have now two hours in which to consider three clauses that are extremely important and unquestionably require a very thorough Committee stage examination. These are not clauses which are just open and shut. They involve a great deal of detail. They are exactly the sort of clauses for which, in a sense, we have the Committee system. To have to gallop through them, as we are having to do today, is completely monstrous. I particularly regret that there will not be time for proper examination of Clause 40, which I think is of the greatest possible importance.
The effect of Amendment No. 346, together with Amendment No. 348, is to change the phrase "prepare guidelines" to "issue directions". This refers to the guidelines which, under the Bill, are to be given by the Secretary of State to—I assume—the Scottish Secretary, in regard to the Scottish Development Agency and certain other agencies or for certain other purposes listed in the clause. Because of


the great pressure on our time, I intend to be very brief. I believe that there are other amendments and debates which should take up more time.
This is an important clause. It is essential that we obtain from the Minister a clear idea of exactly what is meant by "guidelines" and exactly what they are meant to do. The question that one needs to ask the Minister first is whether "guidelines" are the same thing as "directions"—except that the word is used in a rather more delicate way.
If one looks at other Acts of Parliament—indeed, the Acts of Parliament to which reference is made here—one finds that the wording in them is "directions". In this case we now have this word "guidelines". We are entitled to ask the Minister to tell us exactly what the difference is between "guidelines" and "directions", and why it was decided to use the word "guidelines" in this piece of legislation.
The subject matter of the clause covers one or two different Acts of Parliament. There is, first, the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has just referred. The rubric to Section 4 talks of
Power of Secretary of State to give Agency directions.
Those directions are subsequently described as being
of a general or specific character.
Section 5 also confers powers to give directions in this case to do with the giving of "selective financial assistance." There are also, in other parts of the Act, further respects in which the Secretary of State has to approve proposals and in effect give directions.
Section 2 of the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965 says.
The Secretary of State may … give to the Board directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance of their functions, and the Board shall give effect to any such directions.
What really happens under this Bill? Does the Secretary of State give guidelines to the Scottish Secretary who then has, as it were, inherited the powers which at present the Secretary of State has to give directions of a general character, or whatever it may be? In other words,

will the Minister tell us what is really envisaged?
Is it envisaged that the Secretary of State for Scotland, sitting either in London or in Edinburgh, wherever he is, will say to the Scottish Secretary "These are the guidelines under which you will operate ", and that the Scottish Secretary will then inherit, as it were, from the Secretary of State the duty of giving these particular directions? If that is the case, clearly it is rather a nonsensical procedure.
The directions which the Scottish Secretary will have the power to give under these Acts of Parliament will inevitably be liable to be of a somewhat bogus nature, because they will have been determined by the guidelines already given to him by the Secretary of State in the Whitehall Government. We ask the Minister exactly what the position is.
Once again, this makes the point that we are talking about the most incredible muddle. It seems to me that the ideal answer to this problem is that we should not give these economic powers to the Scottish Assembly at all. After all, it was inherent, as I understood it, in the strategy of this whole operation that, whereas the social policy powers would go to the devolved Scottish Assembly, the economic strategy would remain with the United Kingdom as a whole.
These provisions are an example of the way in which the Government have deviated from the principle under which we all understood them to be operating. Therefore, the best answer is that these powers should not be transferred to the Scottish Assembly at all. Failing that, it seems to me—this is the purpose of our amendment—that it would be very much better to stick to the familiar phrase "directions" than to introduce this rather vague and uncertain concept of "guidelines".
I ask again whether the word "guidelines" has any meaning different from that of the word "directions". The purpose of our amendment is to substitute "directions", because they are a clear and familiar concept to which we are all used. "Guidelines" is a hazy concept. Guidelines have about them a rather equivocal flavour. They sound as though they are not really meant to be taken all that seriously—though in this case


they have a punch attached in that the Secretary of State is able to impose them. I hope that the Minister will answer these questions.
Finally, although I am very dubious about the clause, at least it is superior to Clause 40, because under this clause the Whitehall Government have the power ultimately to lay down Government policy, whereas under the next clause, which deals with incomes policy, we have the incredible situation in which the Scottish Secretaries would have to do no more than pay regard to national incomes policy. This is not the moment at which to debate that, but if ever there were a chance to produce complete and utter chaos and appalling friction, t is to be found in Clause 40.

Mr. James Sillars: I object to the amendment. I see no difference in practice between "directions" and "guidelines". I do not know that we can accept that one cannot take the word "guidelines" very seriously. If we were to consult the members of the Fire Brigades Union, I believe they would quickly tell us that guidelines can be directions. I am not going into that dispute, but simply use it as an indication that guidelines are what the person who determines them wants them to be. He determines what they mean, and they can mean directions. If the Secretary of State for Scotland in any future Administration were to lay down guidelines for the Assembly, they would in effect be directions.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) did not object to the Secretary of State's operating guidelines or directions
with the approval of the Treasury".
That acceptance of the Treasury's approval causes my main concern about the amendment. The hon. Gentleman seems to accept that the Treasury is quite a wise body of opinion and that we in Scotland should be happy to accept Treasury guidance or directions.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend will accept that this attitude on Treasury guidance means a separate State, because if one does not accept Treasury guidance, one is then another country.

Mr. Sillars: I do not think that that necessarily follows, although I should be happy to accept a separate Scottish State within the European Economic Community, because that is not equal to separatism, as I am sure my hon. Friend, who is one of the most intellectually honest members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, would be the first to agree.
It does not necessarily follow that even within a devolution settlement, which the Minister of State proposes in the Bill, one needs to have the Treasury dictating every aspect of policy. The quicker my hon. Friend and the rest of the Parliamentary Labour Party realise that the Treasury is not the fount of all wisdom and that it should get its fingers out of all sorts of pies, including industrial relations, the better the prospect for the Parliamentary Labour Party to remain on this side of the Chamber after the next General Election rather than, as now seems likely, on the other side.
From 1960 to 1977–17 years—we have had two Governments in power. We have had nine years of Labour Government and eight years of Conservative Government. Throughout that period Treasury Ministers have been guided, or in my view sometimes directed, by the mandarins in the Treasury. The mandarins have certainly guided or directed the prospects and performance of the Scottish economy, which is in a shambles today. It is suffering from a process of de-industrialisation, rising unemployment and lack of opportunity for our young people.
Over those 17 years it has not mattered much to us in terms of the performance of the Scottish economy whether there has been a Labour or Conservative Government in power, except that I must say in favour of Harold Macmillan's period in office that that was the time when we had direction of industry—probably against the advice and guidance of the Treasury—to the Fort William pulp mill, the Ravenscraig steel mill and the motor car plant in Renfrewshire. I know that I shall carry the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) with me in paying a compliment to his father.
From 1960 to 1977 the Treasury has manipulated Minister after Minister and Chancellor after Chancellor. I am always astounded at how my right hon. Friend


the present Chancellor can keep coming to the Dispatch Box and saying "I got it wrong last time, but this time I have got it right". In one of his 14 Budgets, or whatever the number is, he will confess that he got it wrong last time but say that he will certainly get it right this time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that I would carry the Conservative Party with me at least on that, and if the members of the Tribune Group were present, I am sure that I would have carried them with me as well. I am always astonished by the breathtaking panache with which the present Chancellor can forecast and boast. The only equivalent I know is Ally MacLeod, but, unlike the Chancellor, he has something to boast about.
8.15 p.m.
I think that I am fairly accurate in expecting that the Opposition as well as the Government will accept Treasury and Westminster control of the Scottish Development Agency, which is in essence what the amendment talks about. Such control would mean that the SDA was a Scottish puppet on a Westminster string. But one can never be sure until polling day exactly what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), on the Opposition Front Bench, will say.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State is more predictable. I think that he will argue that Treasury control, Treasury guidelines, directions or whatever, must be retained on the basis that we must maintain the essential unity of the United Kingdom, to use a well-worn phrase.
The Government and some hon. Members falsely believe—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is guilty of this as well—that unity must be cemented by total uniformity, total harmonisation and the universal application of economic and fiscal policies. They can recognise no worth in deviation or variety, in applying different solutions to different problems which arise in different parts of the United Kingdom, whether Cornwall, the Midlands of England, or the constituency of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). They fail to accept that one can apply different solutions to the different problems that crop up because of the geographical and economic differ

ences between different parts of the island of Britain and Ulster.

Mr. Jim Craigen: Surely the existence of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency argues for the fact that there is a varied approach within the United Kingdom. I say to my hon. Friend "Be fair."

Mr. Sillars: I intend to be more than fair. Anyone who examines the present guidelines in relation to the Scottish Development Agency will not find the Scottish Office allowing the SDA to depart from what the Department of Industry and the Treasury would regard as policies essential to the unity of the United Kingdom and non-competition between economic regions within it. I shall deal with the question of non-competition a little later.

Mr. Craigen: When my hon. Friend does so, I think he will agree that even within the EEC there is now a reappraisal of the question of competition among its different areas.

Mr. Sillars: If the EEC takes as long to reappraise the regional policy and its application as it has in altering the common agricultural policy, my hon. Friend and I will be here with beards 12 feet long and basically nothing will have changed if we rely on changes in the Community.
My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), West Lothian and the Minister of State, and even the hon. Members for Cathcart, Ayr (Mr. Younger) and all the rest will probably defend one position or the other—guidelines or directives. It might be acceptable to someone such as myself if they could say that we should accept the wisdom, control and direction of the Treasury because there is proof positive that it has worked to the benefit of the Scottish economy, but that is far from being so.
There are various regions in the United Kingdom—for present purposes I put Scotland in this context, and hope that I do not offend the SNP in doing so—in which there has been a continual rise in seasonally adjusted unemployment since August this year. There is a degree


of growth in the United Kingdom economy, but we are witnessing it in the traditionally rich areas. The old imbalance between Scotland and some other development areas is beginning to emerge once again.
It is interesting that in the South-East, East Anglia, the South-West—which is strange—the East Midlands, the West Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside there has been a diminution of seasonally adjusted unemployment, but in the North-West, the North of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland there has been an increase. The old patterns of imbalance between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom are being reestablished. That means that we shall be first into the next recession, which might come sooner than the Chancellor has forecast. We are last in and first out. It is a continuing process of debilitation.
Some people have argued the Treasury and Department of Industry view that the harmonisation policies have worked in the special development areas. But last month the special development areas had 61 per cent. of total unemployment in Scotland. Out of the Scottish unemployed of 185,000 about 112,000 were in the special development areas. That particular Treasury and Department of Industry policy is not working.
With regard to the current level of unemployment in each special development area in Scotland, in West Central Scotland—the major problem in the Scottish economy at present—in November 1972 there were 71,663 people unemployed. There are now 98,157 people unemployed in that part of the Scottish economy. In Strathclyde the percentage increase in unemployment from November 1975 has been 491. That is a jump in total numbers from 73,000 to 109,000.
In the special development areas, unemployment in Dundee and Arbroath has increased by 110 per cent. between the Labour Government coming in, in March 1974, and October 1977. In Dundee, in the period between 1964 and November 1977, there has been a 288 per cent. increase in unemployment, in Glasgow a 95 per cent. increase in unemployment, and in Edinburgh a 311 per cent. increase in unemployment. I do not think that anyone will argue that the Treasury

finger was ever off the button in that period. One could go on and on demonstrating the lack of the Treasury's ability either to guide or direct the Scottish economy towards full employment.
What about the Labour Government's The Labour Party's election manifesto says on page 12:
Labour will do whatever is necessary to bring full employment to Scotland. We shall not rest until everyone in Scotland has the opportunity of a decent, well-paid job.
If the Labour Government intended to do whatever was necessary to bring about full employment, why has Scottish unemployment doubled in the period since Labour took office in March 1974? There is no point in the hon. Member for Ayr getting terribly excited about the possibility of putting this in his election address, for if we examine his party's performance, we find that in the Conservative election manifesto—the separate one, if I may so term it—there was a promise in 1970 about "a better tomorrow". That was the promise. It has been a long nightmare and we have never reached the dawn.
Coming back to Labour—I do not think that the Conservatives are as irrelevant as some hon. Members may think—

Mr. Small: Is that the intention—to come back to Labour?

Mr. Sillars: There is no intention of that.

Mr. George Younger: I am sure that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) wishes to be fair. He has given some excellent figures which demonstrate that unemployment was much lower under the Conservatives than under the Labour Government. Surely he should give credit to the Conservative Government.

Mr. Sillars: I do not give credit to any party which left office with higher unemployment than when it came into office. That is the projection of Scottish unemployment from the mid-1950s onwards, irrespective of the Government in power.
I have already given credit to the Conservative Administration of Harold Macmillan, in that it certainly directed employment to some areas of the Scottish


economy, but I do not want to dwell on that unless I should upset the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who might believe that it was a Socialist phase inside the Conservative Party. If the Labour Government are doing whatever is necessary, why is the policy not working?

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that as a result of the four years of good work of the Conservative Government between 1970 and 1974, Scotland's relative unemployment position within the United Kingdom improved and continued to improve. But in the last 18 months it has got worse.

Mr. Sillars: I am just a simple working-class lad from Ayrshire who is totally unimpressed by someone who can demonstrate to me that rising unemployment is not in fact rising unemployment. It does not matter a tuppenny bit to my constituents that during the time that the hon. Gentleman's Government were in power the relativity was changing one way or the other, if more and more of them were going on to the employment exchange.
The use of the relativity statistic is an escape route employed by the hon. Gentleman. It is employed by the Secretary of State for Scotland as well. He has also got the bug. It is an escape from the reality, which is that, no matter what the situation happens to be under either Government, unemployment rises in absolute terms.
But we are not dealing with statistics; we are dealing with ordinary people, and that is what counts more than anything else. If the hon. Member for Cathcart and the Secretary of State for Scotland are to go prancing round the country at the next election saying that Scottish unemployment is round about the 180,000 or 200,000 mark, but that there is no need to worry because, relatively speaking, the position is better than ever before, there will be fewer votes cast for them.
Conservative Members seem to want to stop me from coming back to the performance of the Labour Government. I do not know whether it is because they approve of their policy. But I intend to return to the election manifesto, in which there is talk of Labour doing whatever is necessary to bring full employment to

Scotland. Have the Labour Government done that? There must be something wrong with the mechanism of government and economic management if the Government have done their best and, instead of their policy working, Scottish unemployment has increased by about 111 per cent. since Labour came to office.
As to the pledge that the Labour Government would not rest until everyone in Scotland had the opportunity of a decent well-paid job, the Government must have had sleepless night after sleepless night.
I quote next from the book "Scotland 1980", which I know the hon. Member for Cathcart regards as a dreadful publication. I shall quote from a part which at least my hon. Friend the Minister of State will not regard as having been written by someone whose opinions are not worth much one way or the other. It is the section produced by John Firn, who is not a member of the Scottish National Party. I am told that he is a member of the Labour Party. I believe him to be, but I stand open to correction. In the book he has pointed out that
By mid-1976, manufacturing's share of total employment had fallen below 30 per cent. for the first time in living memory, and well over 110,000 manufacturing jobs had been lost since the mid-1960s.
Later he goes on to talk about private enterprise, and this will interest the hon. Member for Cathcart. He writes:
If manufacturing is less than 30 per cent. of total employment in 1980—and by mid-1977 it is already well below trend—and if the indigenous share of that manufacturing remains about the level of the mid-1970s, then it could mean that only about 12 per cent. of total employment was in the private manufacturing sector. This is a truly insignificant level, and much bigger below that of the United Kingdom as a whole, and of the other small countries such as Norway, Sweden, Finland or Denmark, with which Scotland is often compared. Indeed, there must be grave doubts about the ability of a sector that size to play a major part in the type of strong, export-orientated, industrial growth strategy that is required in Scotland.
That is why we are talking about the Scottish Development Agency. I wish that we were talking about the whole public sector. If I tried to deal with that, I should be out of order. If the private sector cannot or does not have the ability to engineer the necessary recovery in terms of growth strategy in the Scottish economy, we must of necessity examine the public sector as the only


solution—or the only potential solution—to the economic and unemployment problems in Scotland.
In examining the public sector one must make reference to the Scottish Development Agency, which is a weapon—I use that term advisedly—which could be used for the extension of the public sector and to make the public sector much more dynamic and job-creative than it now is.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that almost every single White Paper published on the Scottish economy has shown that the biggest slump in jobs in Scotland has been in the State-controlled industries?

Mr. Sillars: Yes, and I think that the fault has been that the public sector in Scotland has not been given positive encouragement to play a dynamic rôle in the comunity. That applies also to the guidelines which constrict the Scottish Development Agency, and which were laid upon it by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who had a fit of Conservatism on the night that he finally put his name to those particular guidelines. They were described in The Scotsman at the time as "impeccably capitalistic" and that is a fair assessment of them. I want the Treasury's guidelines to be removed from the Scottish Development Agency and to allow the Scottish Assembly to determine its total remit.
Some hon. Members from the North-East of England and elsewhere might object and say that we cannot allow the Scottish Development Agency such free rein and free authority because it would damage some of the development areas in England itself. I regard that as absolute rubbish. If we can engineer the Scottish economy so that it fully absorbs the present spare capacity in terms of industry and labour, that will do nothing but good for the other regional parts of the United Kingdom economy.
8.30 p.m.
If, for example, we get the Scottish economy into full employment, the purchasing power of all the people in Scotland is immensely increased. Scotland does not have a consumer-oriented economy, but if it starts to buy consumer goods, that must immediately begin to

benefit the consumer-oriented economy south of the border.
That in itself will have a beneficial effect. If we so engineer the situation in Scotland that we take the Scottish economy into full employment—no more shall we suffer the gibes of being the "subsidised Scots" inside the United Kingdom. We shall be able to make a net contribution to, and not take from, the general pool of resources and cash available within the United Kingdom.
I believe that the only hope for the Scottish economy is economic self-management and resource self-management. I do not think any Unionist or centralist at Westminster can refute that, because all the evidence is there of total incompetence in relation to the performance of the Scottish economy. I see the Scottish Development Agency as a marvellous potential tool for changing the direction and the present trends within the economy.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that what he is essentially saying is that the central Government guidelines to which the SDA should be subject are total budgetary control without any detailed control other than that?

Mr. Sillars: I am arguing within this particular devolution setting. I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example. Unfortunately, it is not a good example and I shall explain why in a moment. I shall embarrass the Minister of State as well. I refer to the regional employment premium.
Had we still had the regional employment premium, we should have had about £78 million for labour subsidy in Scotland. Because of the principle of uniformity and harmonisation, there was no variation in which one could use the regional employment premium. We could not give £6 in Galloway, £1·50 in North Aberdeen, £9 in Inverness, or £6 in Clydeside. It is part of my argument that if the United Kingdom Government sets the macro-amount for any sector of the economy or any major activity by subsidisation—

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must not overlook that we are dealing with Amendment No. 346, which is reasonably narrow. There may


be a debate on "clause stand part" in due course, in which case what he is saying may be relevant.

Mr. Sillars: I think I was led astray. I think that the example I am giving to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) is in order. Under the Treasury guidelines or directions that we are likely to get, I expect that the Treasury will be opposed to the kind of flexibility that I was describing with regard to the application of regional policies. I shall not go on about the REP. However, I remind the Minister of State that, although he was a great champion of REP when in opposition, he has not said very much about it since the Labour Government abolished that part of regional policy.
I think I am in order in saying that the debates on the Bill have pointed to the fact that there is conflict between Edinburgh and Westminster built into almost every clause. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have talked about the heat, conflict and conflagration that will flow from that. I think we are talking about a real landmine.

Mr. Dalyell: A field of landmines.

Mr. Sillars: Some landmines are bigger than others. I do not think it is even a booby-trap. It is a major land-mine in the Bill and in the relations that will have to be established between Edinburgh and Westminster.
The root of Scottish politics has always been about jobs. If one studies the election manifestos, the election addresses and the speeches and the debates on Scottish television—Grampian and BBC programmes on current events—one sees that jobs tend to dominate the Scottish economy and the performance of Scottish industry. If one thinks of the powers to be given to the Assembly, there is only one area in which the Assembly can properly engage in the industrial planning of Scotland, and that is through the Scottish Development Agency. It is the guidelines that will determine the Assembly's ability to engage properly or in a frustrated manner, and that will then begin to build up waves of resentment against Westminster.
For example, the guidelines will be set by the Secretary of State for Scot land with the consent, and all the rest,

of the Treasury. Let us suppose that the hon. Member for Cathcart, who has a predilection for Conservative Right-wing policies, were Secretary of State for Scotland. Let us suppose that the Scottish Assembly decided that, because of the importance of the public sector, it was necessary to have the power and the right to buy its way into firms in the private sector in order to protect or expand the Scottish economy. Because of the hon. Gentleman's particular political philosophy, I think that he would object, because that is anathema to the hon. Gentleman.
Let us suppose that the Assembly decides that the SDA should have a remit to establish inventive public enterprise in various sectors of the economy—let us take timber as an example. Let us suppose it decided to give the SDA the remit to vary incentives, not necessarily to bring in firms externally in competition with the North-East of England, but to permit a growth of indigenous industry. I would take a bet from anyone that the hon. Member for Cathcart would not be able to resist the temptation of saying "No". If the guidelines did not permit him to say "No", I am sure that he would change those guidelines or the directive in the amendment in order to say "No".
Let us suppose we have a Left-wing radical Socialist Scottish Assembly, which means that it will not be the Labour Party, which wanted to do a whole range of things. The hon. Member for Cathcart, as a Right-wing Conservative Secretary of State, would say that we had the onset of Socialism in Scotland which would ultimately sweep south of the border.

Mr. Dalyell: That example does not apply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) or the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) would be in exactly the same position, because their supporters so require them. It is not just a question of bogies from Cathcart. Any Opposition Member would be forced by the political situation to do precisely that. That is why the hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that this is one of the many landmines.

Mr. Sillars: I find it difficult to conjure up the vision of the hon. Member for


Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) leading the Conservative Party, either north or south of the border. That is why I concentrated on the hon. Member for Cathcart. It happens to be my opinion that that would happen—

Mr. Dalyell: Any moderate man.

Mr. Sillars: My hon. Friend is probably right—if there were a Conservative Administration in power and it believed that a Left-wing Socialist Assembly would create sufficient elbow room for Socialism to come into England and thereby infect other parts of the United Kingdom.
I ask hon. Members to consider the hypothetical situation where a Scottish industry was in trouble. The most obvious place for that industry to go would be the Scottish Development Agency. I do it in my own constituency. I am sure that any hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency faced with industrial problems goes to Lewis Robertson and asks the SDA to make an examination to see whether it can help. We are bound to do that.
In such case the industry will go to the Assembly and the Assemblymen will say "Yes" and that they believe that X is the solution but, unfortunately, that the guidelines to do not permit the application of that solution. What happens then is that the Assembly passes a motion, probably unanimously, irrespective of the party political make-up of its Members, demanding a change in the guidelines. That goes to Westminster, and then it becomes the political judgment of people like the hon. Member for Cathcart, or whoever happens to be Secretary of State at the time. If they are unreasonable and say "No", a potentially explosive political situation developes between the Assembly and Westminster and develops unnecessarily, because the position taken at Westminster will be the position that would be taken now in terms of that policy, and it is a failed policy. So it would be foolish and unnecesary, although that would not stop people down here.
That is one of the reasons why I am opposed to this amendment and intend to vote against it. I shall not take part in the "Clause stand part" debate,

although I hope that the clause will be defeated as well.

Mr. Dalyell: There is a rider to this. Not only would it be an approach to the Secretary of State. The Assembly, conscious of its own dignity, would short circuit this position. The Chief Secretary, Prime Minister, or whatever he called himself, would be knocking at the door of 10, Downing Street on these issues. That would lead straight to the situation, and more, that my hon. Friend describes.

Mr. Sillars: That might be the case.

Mr. Norman Buchan: That is exactly what some of us have been trying to tell my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) for several years when he was busily bashing us for saying so.

Mr. Sillars: One of the reasons that made me change my mind was when I witnessed the performance of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) as a member of two separate Administrations. He is a classic example of the raging Left-winger when in opposition and at Tribune meetings who becomes a normal moderate Minister when he is in the Government. When he was in charge of Scottish land for two or three years in the Scottish Office, I do not think that there was a square centimetre ever taken into public ownership. I came to this House having been spellbound by the rhetoric and oratory of the Left-wing Member for Renfrewshire, West over the period when I was not a Member. Then I discovered that it was not the case when he was in Westminster, and I thought that it was better to go to Edinburgh. I make that confession to my hon. Friend. He is one of those who have helped to convert me since I came to Westminster.
I am delighted to have carried so many hon. Members with me in my argument, and I anticipate that they will vote against the amendment. More importantly, I hope that they will vote against the clause when it is put to the Committee.

Mr. Crawford: Doubtless the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) is as surprised as I am to find the Conservative Party supporting an amendment which uses the phrase "issue directions"


to a State or semi-State body. It is very interesting. But I' suppose we should not be all that surprised. After all, the Conservatives voted against the override provisions in Clauses 36, 37 and 38. I am delighted that they did so. Presumably they knew what they were doing when they voted against them.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Pym: Of course we knew what we were doing. The hon. Member must not misrepresent it, although he may take pleasure in doing so.

Mr. Hector Monro: He always misrepresents things.

Mr. Crawford: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said that I always misrepresent things. I am stating a fact. The Conservatives voted against Clauses 36, 37 and 38—the overriding clauses. I do not know why they did. I am not privy to the counsels of the Conservative Party, but they voted against the override provisions of the Bill.
On the amendment, I take my text from yesterday's university match at Twickenham, about which there was an article by Mr. Gwynne Walters, a well-known Welsh referee, who describes how a fellow countryman meted out heavy punishment in the first few minutes of the game. He says that "he reprimanded the player, but the opposing captain told him not to worry because his team needed stimulation. This team was providing that stimulation."
The Scottish National Party has had plenty of stimulation from the Conservative Party during the debates on the Scotland Bill. We have had the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) saying that unemployment in Merseyside is higher than on Strathclyde. I am delighted to inform him that he is wrong. The figures are 10·8 per cent. for Strathclyde and 8·9 per cent. for Merseyside.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I went to the Library just three minutes ago and got the latest figures. They are Strathclyde 10·1 per cent. and Merseyside 11·7 per cent. In Glasgow the figure is 9·1 per cent. and in Liverpool it is 12·1 per cent.

Mr. Crawford: The hon. Member is talking about relativities. He should go

to some of the employment exchanges in the East End of Glasgow, where he would find unemployment over the 30 per cent. mark.
The hon. Member also said last night
We were not able to discuss exactly how the Assembly could do it, but I should imagine, for example, that the people of England or this House might say 'We shall not bail out this miserable Scottish Assembly which has landed itself with millions of pounds of debts'".
We are told that we are going to be bailed out by our own money, and we are supposed to be grateful for it.
The Scottish National Party was also stimulated by the speech earlier tonight of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I was interested in his speech, so I took down his remarks, which were inflammatory. He said:
England, although slow to anger, will come to realise what is being done, and English anger will be fierce.
That is a very serious statement.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that the hon. Member is overlooking the fact that we are dealing with an amendment on a rather narrow front.

Mr. Crawford: I take your point, Mr. Godman Irvine. The point about what is happening in Scotland was put best yesterday by my hon. Friend—I hope that I may call him my friend—the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) when he spoke in the context of the Scottish Development Agency and Scottish business confidence. He said:
Our business men do not believe that if they are stood on their own feet in the Scottish context they will be able to manage as they do now under the patronage and tutelage of people in the Westminster setting. They might be surprised by their own ability at the end of the day."—[Official Report, 6th December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 1177, 1189.]
This is the answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and other Front Bench Conservatives.
As far as Scotland is concerned, the chamber of commerce is against us; this body and that body are against us; everyone is against us except the Scottish people. We have the stimulation of Scotland being treated in these debates like a beast in the market place. We cannot suffer it much longer. I know now how Parnell and the Irish Party must have felt in the last century in the House of Commons.
I come to the analogy between the Scottish Development Agency and the Irish Industrial Development Authority. The Irish body has been successful to the extent that 10 years ago exports of manufactured goods were worth £200 million and now they are worth some £2,000 million. The Scottish Development Agency must be made as strong as the Irish authority. Also, we want to see a venture capital wing of the Scottish Development Agency.
In the latest SDA report, we see the following:
Scotland has an unduly low proportion of companies whose ownership and management are Scottish-based, and the Agency would wish to foster indigenous industry and to encourage a long-term increase in the proportion of such companies.… The concern for indigenous companies relates partly to the need that younger men of talent should see wide career opportunities in Scotland, so that enough of them may stay to enrich the management pool and society generally.
The Scottish Development Agency will not be able to undertake this task if the Conservative amendment is carried—and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire will agree. Despite the views of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), I must tell him that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) will confirm that at their meeting with the STUC that body wanted to see the Scottish Assembly as an economic power with control over the SDA. I was at that meeting with the STUC and that was what its general secretary, Mr. James Milne, said.

Mr. Buchan: This was not what was said by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) in the House. Not only does the STUC want economic powers for the agency, but so also do the Government. The hon. Gentleman must not twist the situation in that way.

Mr. Crawford: I cannot become involved in internal quarrels between the Labour Party in Scotland and the STUC.

Mr. John Smith: Since the hon. Gentleman referred to the STUC, and since the Government have discussed these matters directly with that body on a number of

occasions involving areas of devolution, I assure the hon. Gentleman—there should be no mistake about it—that the decision of the Government to transfer executive, but not legislative, responsibility for industrial affairs on the part of the Agency and the consequent guidelines were fully appreciated and agreed to by the STUC.

Mr. Crawford: My understanding of our meeting with the STUC was that it wanted to see legislative devolution as well. If the Minister says that the STUC does not want legislative devolution, that is fair enough, but that was not what I understood from that meeting.
Let me return to the amendment. If directions are issued by the House, I believe that the SDA will not be able to fulfil its functions. Let me quote from the SDA report, page 6:
If we think in terms of the complete and effective regeneration of the Scottish economy—and the Agency ought indeed to think in such terms—it must be said that the amount allocated by statute will not be sufficient. Measured against the total need, or against the total of current annual relevant investment, and assuming a period of perhaps five years, £300 million will not cover the full requirement".
If the House of Commons is to issue directions to the SDA, it will not get the powers it needs. The Chairman of the SDA, Sir William Gray, who was quoted in the Press the other week, said that the Agency should have access to the revenue from Scottish oil.
Whether or not the amendment is carried, I put it to the Committee—again, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire will agree with me—that in time the Assembly will take over control of the SDA. That will follow as night follows day. Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will agree with that statement.
Now the SDA is concerned about scaremongering stories put about by the Conservative Party to the effect that once self-government comes several companies will move out of Scotland. It behoves the Conservatives, if they know the names of those companies, to name them. If they cannot do, they should hold their peace.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman say in what way the SDA


expressed those views to him? When I had a meeting with that body, it expresed no such view. It certainly named no major industrialists or trade unionists who take the view that SNP policy will help to preserve jobs in Scotland.

Mr. Crawford: I do not think I should answer the second part of that question. I was saying that, if the Conservative Party cannot name the companies which intend to pull out of Scotland, it should hold its peace. We know what has happened to the steel industry in Scotland.
Conservatives have refused to mention those 40 foreign banks which have come to Scotland in the last 10 years or so. Those were years when the SNP was on the up and up. The Swiss Bank is the latest one to arrive, and it will begin operations on 9th February. It is not for me to issue invitations, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to come the Swiss Bank will be delighted to have him at the opening. I suggest that this is the situation and that the international banking community is voting with its feet.
I have more news for the hon. Member for Cathcart, again in the context of the SDA. He will be as concerned as I am about the possible takeover of one or two investment trusts in Edinburgh. I have here a letter from the deputy-chairman of the Scotland Association of Investment Trusts, which says:
A loss of international investment expertise accumulated for almost a century in many cases will not be easily replaced in Scotland and you can appreciate that should there be many more such bids it will be difficult if not impossible to offer a career structure in investment management. Although our numbers in terms of personnel may be small the husbandry of the country's overseas assets over many years has brought disproportionately large returns in invisible earnings. As an analogy, it is worth remembering that apart from the General Accident the composite insurance industry has had no head office management or investment expertise in Scotland since the take-overs of the late 1950s and early 1960s.
If the amendments in the spirit and the words that the Tory Party have tabled in Amendment No. 346 are agreed, there will be even more centralisation of decision-making over the Scottish economy, away from Scotland. The hon. Member for Cathcart had better bear that in mind.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Member say whether the passing or otherwise of this amendment would affect the policy of the National Coal Board pension fund in bidding for the Scottish Investment Trust?

Mr. Crawford: I am delighted to hear the hon. Member for Cathcart promoting the pension fund of a London-based nationalised industry. I suggest that any Scottish Government, if it were interested in its own entrepreneurs, would put grave restrictions on that.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Will the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) answer the question straight for once?

Mr. Crawford: Does the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) wish to intervene?

Mr. Fletcher: I have just done so.

Mr. Sillars: I am getting a wee bit worried about the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) referring to me as his hon. Friend when he is defending Scottish capitalism. Is he saying that in his view no Scottish Government would allow, for example, a Scottish-owned organisation or a Scottish Coal Board to operate in the way that he is condemning? If he is saying that, he cannot call me his hon. Friend.

Mr. Crawford: I can still call the hon. Member my hon. Friend. He cannot impute these things to me. A strong SDA and a strong Scottish economy are complementary, and the SNP will brook no interference in the SDA by this House of Commons or the Treasury in Great George Street.

Mr. Buchan: I am grateful to the Chair for being called, because I have not been in the Chamber for a great length of time. However, I heard some of the arguments on previous occasions and I came in to hear the latter end of the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) about the economic problems that this Bill would cause.
I want to pick up some points that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) has just made in an incredible speech. He initially claimed that the trade unions, working-class


organisations and business organisations were all against the SNP.
The hon. Gentleman quoted Roosevelt without naming him, when he said that all except the people were against the nationalists, but he was wrong there as well. All the polls show that only 25 to 28 per cent. of the people of Scot and support the SNP and that half those reject its policy. According to a Sunday Mail poll, 53 per cent. of SNP voters rejected the party's policy—so the Scottish people are now against the SNP.
9.0 p.m.
The next thing that I want to pick up is the hon. Member's attempt not to restate the untruths that were stated in the House three weeks ago in relation to the Scottish TUC position, but to retreat from that, though, at the same time, to attribute the blame to the STUC. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has virtually accused the STUC of lying. Following the statement by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) that the STUC backed the SNP on where it was going in general and in relation to economic powers, the STUC issued a statement flatly denying any such thing. If the SNP Members reiterate that claim, they are accusing the STUC and, above all, its Secretary of lying. Is it any wonder that everyone in Scotland is against them? They appear to be against everyone else.
The trouble with SNP's claim for access to Scotland's own resources in relation to oil is that it is not even-handed justice. The SNP seeks access to Scotland's resources in one respect, but also to the rest of the United Kingdom's resources in every other respect.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire failed to see, as did the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, who does not so much argue a case as proceed by a series of pronunciamentos, the real nature of the beast, the real nature of the economy that we have to deal with. It is the nature of the economy that makes the assertions of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire correct when he points out the likelihood of an explosive situation arising here, but wrong in the conclusion that he draws.
When I intervened and got a proper clobbering from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire for my pains, I wanted simply to make the point that some of us have been saying this for a long time. I have certainly been saying it in articles since 1971 and since before then in speeches.

Mr. Sillars: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman will vote against Clause 39 standing part of the Bill?

Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman let me make my own speech as I allowed him to make his? We shall deal with that matter when we reach it. At the moment we are on a narrow point.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire was right in his analysis that there is a danger of arguments over the economic situation, whether we have guidelines or directives, but his answer was wrong when he said that therefore we must achieve totally separate control within Scotland. The hon. Gentleman has failed to understand the nature of modern capitalism, of the British economy and of proper working-class responses. The trouble with his speech was that he made one slightly ashamed of the term "Socialism". Above all, Socialism depends upon concrete analyses of situations and not upon a series of assertions. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's speech many times, though his peroration was rather better than usual: it was quite good.

Mr. Sillars: How can the hon. Gentleman say that he has heard my speech before when he was not here to hear it and there is no broadcast of our proceedings? Is that not an absurd position for him to take, along with all his other absurd positions?

Mr. Buchan: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was brighter than that. I have heard the speech many times. I knew what the hon. Gentleman was saying, because he has said it many times before.
The real task is to make an analysis of the economy. I did not decide to speak until I came into the Chamber about 15 minutes ago, but I have some figures that I should like to give the Committee. In 1910 the top 100 companies in Britain controlled 15 per cent. of our GNP. That is not many companies. There would probably be 100 companies in South


Ayrshire alone. In 1950 the top 100 companies also have interlocking director-GNP. In the next 20 years up to 1970 the top 100 companies moved to a position of controlling more than 50 per cent. of the economy, and by now they probably control something of the order of two-thirds of it. In other words, the graph, which moved very slowly for half a century, has suddenly jumped, and there has been a greater and greater conglomeration of power into fewer and fewer hands, because the 100 top companies also have interlocking directorships. Therefore we have a great accumulation of power in a small number of hands.
My second point is the vast accumulation of power and wealth of the multinational companies, which now have sufficient power to be able to overthrow a medium-sized State such as Chile. That is what happened in Chile through the operations of ITT. When I had to fight to help to save Chrysler and to retain Chrysler in Scotland, I remember meeting Mr. Riccardo, the chairman of Chrysler Corporation, and asking him how he valued Chrysler's assets in Britain. He told me "Now they are valueless". "In that case", said I, very cleverly, I thought, "you cannot object if we say that we will take them into public ownership with compensation at your own valuation"—in other words, zero.
What I did not know in saying that we should take them over for nothing, on his own evaluation, was that he himself was saying "Please take them over, and I shall pay you £30 million to do it." He recognised that the problem to him in relation to ownership or retention of Chrysler in the United Kingdom, let alone in Scotland, was the question of penetrating the United Kingdom market. He could penetrate the market through Dodge in America, Chrysler Simca in Europe, and Colt and others in Japan. That was what he wanted access to. I felt like someone who has hit someone over the head on a dark night and been surprised when he did not fall down and then discovered when the light came on that he had been wearing a steel helmet. When we have reached the stage where the ultimate threat of taking over such companies is valueless, we see that these companies have immense power. This

was a medium-sized multinational company.
Given the background of the conglomeration of power and wealth in the hands of a small number of people and companies, and given the colossal power that can be exerted by a multinational company, which can destroy an economic system by its pricing policy, for example, I believe that one of the reasons for the Chrysler economic crisis was that Chrysler was selling British-made cars to a Swiss subsidiary at a low mark-up because of the beneficial tax system in Switzerland. The high rate of corporation tax in Britain, led to cars being sold here at a high mark-up, thereby reducing the apparent profits coming to the United Kingdom.
Given that kind of ability to over-ride the taxation system of a medium-sized power such as ours, we can see the problems that could face us in Scotland. This is not just because Scotland would be a small nation. That is irrelevant to the argument. The real point is that over the period from 1910 until now there has not only been this colossal intermingling of power within capitalism itself, but there have been inter-locking companies intermingling throughout every industry.

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) used the word "irelevant" about some argument that he was adducing. What he has said since I assumed the Chair has nothing to do with the very specific amendment before the Committee, which is concerned with whether there are to be guidelines or directions. Even though we have until 11 o'clock, I ask the hon. Gentleman at least to be relevant to the amendment.

Mr. Buchan: The relevance of my argument will now become apparent, because as soon as we consider the question of guidelines or directives in one area of Britain, we recognise that we are dealing with an economy that is closely integrated throughout the United Kingdom. The question, therefore, becomes whether this can best be done by directives or guidelines, which is what I am examining.
There is a second intermingling, not only the intermingling within capitalism but an intermeshing between Government


and the economy. The result is that, although one could have argued for us to have Home Rule in 1910 with guidelines or Home Rule in 1910 with directions, it is now a far more complex business, for the truth is that, even if we were to crack this question and create the sort of separate economy argued for by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, there would still not be effective power. The power would still be exerted by the basic United Kingdom economy, of which nine-tenths would be dominated solely by another independent Government, dominating our one-tenth because it is intermingled.
Let me give some examples to show how difficulties would arise. At one end of my constituency we have shipbuilding. With one-quarter of the capacity of the British shipbuilding industry, Scotland has one one-tenth of the Great Britain population. In a situation where there were no guidelines or directions in relation to the United Kingdom but only unrestricted rule by the nine-tenths English-dominated United Kingdom economy, we could not expect to see any intervention to direct a greater proportion of shipbuilding orders to that quarter of the shipbuilding industry which exists in Scotland. We should get no more than cur share in any matters under Government control.
Next, in the middle of my constituency there is Chrysler. I could not have saved Chrysler—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I could not have helped or argued to save Chrysler in the situation which I have described were we not part of an integrated United Kingdom economy. The one thing which would have gone was Linwood. That was very apparent, from the standpoint of the amount of profit rundown, and no separate Government could have stopped that because the production could have been done, and done more efficiently—not socially efficiently but more effciently from a capitalist point of view—in Coventry. Thus, shipbuilding would have been hit, and Chrysler would have been hit.
At the top end of my constituency we have Babcock and Wilcox. This is an industry—the point is closely relevant to the amendment—which has only one basic customer, the Central Electricity

Generating Board. We can sell some exports, and that is good. We can do some private work, and that is good. But Babcock and Wilcox would close tomorrow were it not for orders coming from the Central Electricity Generating Board.
The CEGB is a nationalised industry. If we were to have a separate Scottish economy and a separate Scottish central electricity generating board as well as an English central electricity generating board, nine-tenths of production would come from England and one-tenth from Scotland. The English would quite rightly apply pressure for orders to go to English factories, just as we, including my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, would press that orders for the Scottish electricity generating board should go to the Scottish factory. The difficulty is that the Scottish factory could have only one-tenth of our existing orders. We could not survive on that. The factory would die.
Thus, at each end of my constituency and in the middle there would be a massive clobbering by unemployment. I am not prepared to chant "Freedom through suffering". I am not prepared to say to people thrown on the dole "Never mind about the policies advocated by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, you have your freedom."

Mr. Sillars: It is the hon. Member's Government.

Mr. Buchan: I am not prepared to say that, and this is where the failure of the argument becomes clear, because it has not been pushed through to an analysis of the nature of the animal with which we are dealing. We must therefore reject the case put by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, and we must reject it especially because he uses it in aid of the kind of Socialist analysis argument advanced by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.
We are, therefore, now left with the Tory Party. I think that I am right there, because the Liberals have gone. The Tory Party has very little basic concern for liberating people to have more control over their own affairs. I say in passing that the best way of liberating and


giving more democracy to the people of Scotland would be massive public ownership of the industries of Scotland allied to an extension of democratic power and democratic control by the people of Scotland.
When the Tories and those who think like them talk of liberty, they mean liberty for the few. I do not believe that there is liberty for the many without the ownership and control of the economy by the working people. That is the perspective.
9.15 p.m.
What is the concern of the Tory Party? It is concerned with the detestation of handing out power in that way, of allowing even decentralisation under democratic control to extend via the Assembly. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire is seriously wrong in thinking that we can deal with our own economy by giving total economic power to the Assembly. The Tory Party is equally wrong, but not so dangerously wrong.

Mr. Sillars: Where is it that I am wrong if I argue pretty much the same case as the hon. Gentleman? Is he arguing that power to the Assembly translated into the public ownership of the commanding heights of the Scottish economy would not be in the interests of the Scottish people? If so, he is contradicting himself again.

Mr. Buchan: I thought that I had already given an explanation. It seems that I shall have to adopt words of one syllable. I thought that I had explained that even if we gave such powers to the Assembly our economy would still be dominated and affected by economic decisions because of the nature of our highly integrated economy, through the intermeshing of capital and the intermingling of Government structures. The decisions would still be made in the financial and power institutions of London even if we had a totally separate economy. There are the examples of Babcock and Wilcox, Chrysler, and the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Sillars: That is not the point. I thought that the hon. Gentleman argued that the only solution to the Scottish economy was total public ownership of that economy. If there is total ownership of the Scottish economy in the public

sector, that means that it will no longer be affected by the intermeshing and vertical and horizontal integration of which he speaks.

Mr. Buchan: On the contrary, it would still be mightily affected by that intermeshing and integration. That would be the position even if we had total public ownership of the heavy electrical engineering industry. If Babcock and Wilcox were taken into public ownership, we should still have no power in terms of the United Kingdom economy. That is a fact that must be faced. To say otherwise is to create an illusion.
We must get our hands—I thought that this is what the hon. Gentleman was in business to do—not merely on the economic levers of power, but on the economic levers of real power. I do not want levers that do not control. I want them to mean something when I have them. That means that we must have effective control over the whole United Kingdom economy. If not, we shall be in the classic position of a neo-colonial State. We shall have all the trappings of statehood but none of the effective power.
That is the greatest illusion that we could offer to the people of Scotland. It would bring about the cataclysmic crackup that I think the hon. Gentleman wants. It would not lead to Socialism.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I shall return to the real subject-matter of the amendment. There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) in moving the amendment has, not for the first time in our debates, put his finger on the key section of the clause relating to the controls that will be exercised in respect of the economic and industrial powers in Scotland, especially those that are exercised through the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It is right that the clause should be debated, and right that it should be debated in relatively broad terms. It turns on the central issue of economic and industrial powers.
I wish that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) would keep their ideological arguments, which are not necessarily directly relevant to the amendment, for discussion elsewhere and allow those who wish


to discuss the effect of these provisions on Scotland the opportunity of doing so.
We can get ourselves into a muddle in discussing economic and industrial powers. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, I think that in strengthening by replacing "guidelines" with "directives" we are touching on one of the main areas of conflict between the Assembly and the United Kingdom Government.
This is one of the most sensitive areas in which conflict is most likely to arise. I wonder, therefore, whether we are dealing with it properly by a system of guidelines and directives. Unless the Assembly has a real kind of discretion in the exercise of economic and industrial power, this will contribute to the failure of the kind of devolution we have in mind.
We have to consider whether such guidelines and directives are necessary to begin with. The exercise of economic and industrial powers will be circumscribed in any case by the block grant from the United Kingdom Treasury. Therefore, to the extent that discipline will have to be exercised in the interests of the overall management of the United Kingdom economy, I believe that it will exist anyway in relation to the block grant and negotiations on it. I seriously question whether the detail of that clause and the amendment is necessary.
I get particularly worried when I hear the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, because he seems to want centralised control of the British economy—

Mr. Buchan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am afraid that it is implicit in a great deal of what the hon. Member says. I know the reasons behind his argument, but his argument leads to a greater degree of central control, and I am opposed to that. The Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency have enormous powers concerning regional development. Regional development will flourish and succeed where there is variety within the policy. If it is too closely restricted by guidelines and directives, the variety will be lost.
The genesis and seeds of regional policy are to be found in Northern Ireland, where regional policy as we know

it was initiated. The policy was under the control of the devolved Government at Stormont, and it was because of that control that successful regional policy was developed in the Province. That was one of the most successful aspects of Northern Ireland's devolution. When we came to introduce regional policy in Scotland, the first area in Britain to be given it, we applied many of the principles and practices that had been evolved in Northern Ireland. Eventually we extended them to the North of England and other areas.
We must, therefore, see variety in the exercise of the powers through the HIDB and the SDA, and with that variety we shall secure a more effective regional policy and a more effective Assembly and Executive. If hon. Members believe that with this form of devolution we must be able to exercise restraint on the economy, that restraint already exists in the financial provisions in the Bill. We do not have to write in more conflict-provoking provisions.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I apologise to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) for not being present when he moved the amendment, but from the speech which has just been made I can gather the hon. Member's general tone. I shall not continue the arguments of my hon. Friends who have made powerful speeches on the Scottish economy generally. I shall address myself to the narrower implications of the amendment.
I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister reply to the debate and give his definition of "directives" and "guidelines". The word "guidelines" is used in several places in the clause, one of which effectively defines it. Clause 39(1) lists the circumstances under which guidelines are to be given, and subsection (4) states that
A Scottish Secretary shall exercise the powers with respect to which guidelines are prepared under this section so as to give effect to the guidelines.
I am not entirely persuaded that guidelines are the type of things that one should "give effect to". "Follow" would be a more relaxed word. That would be better than "directions".
I think that there is a substantial difference in intent. It is not only a matter


of using a variable "X" and saying that one must follow "X" in two different places in the clause. The argument about whether the Secretary of State should give rigid directions, perhaps on a narrow range of matters, or broader guidelines on a wider range of matters is well illustrated by the guidelines under which the Scottish Development Agency operates. They are contained in an annexe to the annual report of the Scottish Development Agency which, I understand, has been circulated to hon. Members. They have a wide range.
Before discussing that issue in particular, I should like to discuss more widely the rôle that guidelines have played in important aspects of government, and well beyond the Government. One of the most important statements on guidelines published by any Government in the last 20 years was the White Paper on the economic and financial objectives of nationalised industries which was published by the Conservative Government in 1971. It is an admirable document reflecting the work of a Select Committee.
For the first time, and to the shame of the Labour Party, that document really defined the job of the nationalised industries in this important respect. In terms of defining the long-term marginal costs, pricing criteria and the required rate of return of new investment, it concentrated the minds of the nationalised industries after a period of chaos and confusion under a Conservative Government who did not like nationalised industries and did not know what to do with them. A marked improvement in morale in the nationalised industries followed that White Paper.
Guidelines need not necessarily be declarations from a Government. One of the important guidelines for the retail trade was the ingenious discovery by the Rochdale Pioneers. They decided that one could run a decent business by allowing customers to take shares and, after a short period, collect a "divi". That guideline made it possible to build a massive retail enterprise.
Another and less happy guideline, which came from sources other than government, was the guidance on competition credit control by the Bank of England. That was made when the recent Conservative Government were in power and it

was disastrous. It was perhaps an example of how guidelines cannot be avoided. Those guidelines were wrong, but some guidelines were needed to carry out the Government's intentions.
9.30 p.m.
The Agency is very close to the ground, and properly so, in its practical problems of handling many very small companies. It has to be extremely flexible in the way in which it works, but at the same time it must satisfy the public and the House of Commons that it is acting broadly in the public interest and under the intentions of the Government. I give two examples.
A small firm in my constituency found itself clobbered because its valuation of stocks was knocked for six by a major change in the major commodity which it purchases. It lost overnight some £10,000 of its working capital of no more than £100,000. It went to a Scottish bank, explained the situation and asked for an increase of £10,000 in its overdraft limit. Far from being able to grant the increase in overdraft, the bank said that it would have to cut the limit by £10,000 because there was less asset cover. That is the kind of treatment that small enterprises are getting from joint stock banks in Scotland today.
Needless to say, that firm very promptly changed its bank, but, following inquiries, I am afraid that the banks generally declared that they would not expect their managers to exercise a wider discretion in the matter. The firm went to the SDA, and I am glad to say that it received the necessary loan to enable it to develop in a way which has not only preserved but increased the number of jobs that it is providing in an industry in which it is extremely well established. If a bank had taken the trouble to look at the firm's books, it could easily have justified the loan.
My second example concerns the situation which will be in the Scottish newspapers tomorrow—the position of Smiths Industries factory in Wishaw. It has been a major employer on my constituency for many years, making the 24-hour mechanical alarm clocks which have been on every chimneypiece in the land. But mechanical clocks are being clobbered by quartz crystal and the factory has lost virtually its whole business. It is


struggling to get going in a new area, but it will be able to provide employment for only a tiny proportion even of the reduced labour force of the factory.
In such a case, with a large labour force with a particular set of skills, and the firm's technology having evaporated overnight, one has to ask "How do we keep this enterprise alive?" The problem requires great ingenuity and flexibility, not only from the SDA but from the Government and from other private companies. It is the sort of matter that one must be able to deal with and respond to quickly and flexibly and under agreed principles which do not screw up the argument. Argument over a long period means that by the time one makes a decision the situation has gone rotten. One must act quickly in such circumstances and without long arguments on principle which can so easily bog down boards of directors and Ministers.
The avoidance of bogging down in argument on principle is what guidelines are about. The guidelines of the SDA broadly apply the means by which it has been possible for the Agency to make a lively start. Undoubtedly, under the experience of working, and in the relations between the Agency and the Government, those guidelines will develop.
The provisions in the Bill for the development of guidelines are simple: they require only an order which provides an opportunity to give endorsement to the philosophy of developing guidelines. It is wholly right that those guidelines should be clarified in the relationships between this place and the Assembly.
Finally, I come to the question of whether, in order to maintain the ecomic unity of the United Kingdom, there needs to be social uniformity across the regions and as between the rest of the United Kingdom and Scotland. I do not myself take the view that if there were freedom of a very high degree in the ecomic activities of the Assembly it would produce an undesirable state of affairs, least of all in industrial development, if the Assembly were able to have under the present Bill the block grant, and under—as I hope—the powers for which the Assembly will be asking some powers of taxation.
If the Assembly chooses to spend the money on a stupid, extravagant project, it will have to raise it in taxation or it will not be able to spend that money on other causes which might be very much more effective.
I give an example of where, if moneys were now spent by regional development agencies, we would not have the present structure of financial incentives that would give the structure of capital incentives in the development areas in this country. The Scottish Development Agency, given the sums of money which at present go to capital-intensive industry in Scotland, would never spend that money on chemical and oil industries, nor even on steelworks in my own constituency. It would go into ways of creating the jobs needed at a very much lower cost in terms of capital per man, if one's purpose is to create jobs. That, as every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has made clear, will be a very major preoccupation of the Assembly.
Therefore, I would prefer to see the range of public expenditure in industrial development that is committed to the care of the Assembly widened, not solely because I think it important that the Assembly should have powers to become politically viable but because it would produce a more efficient economic use of resources.
I think that, with the explanations which no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will be giving in due course, the wording of the clause is perfectly satisfactory. I am absolutely confident that the amendment is not acceptable because it entirely misses the point about the rôle of guidelines in the relationships between the Government and bodies such as the SDA. If, however, there is some clarification of precisely the way in which guidelines are to be followed—followed, rather than given effect to—I shall be very interested in what my hon. Friend has to say.

Mr. Monro: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) tabled this amendment and was lucky enough, under this infamous procedure, to have it called. It is very much at the heart of the Bill and something that Members of Parliament can be particularly interested in, because the impact of the SDA is something in which


we shall be very much involved in relation to our constituencies in Scotland. Of course, through the Secretary of State and this parliamentary control, we, too, will be involved to an extent here in the operation of the SDA if the Bill is passed and subsequently approved in a referendum.
I think that it is fair to say—this follows on from what the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) was saying—that the Members of Parliament from Scottish constituencies have, in a comparatively short time, built up very valuable working relationships with the SDA. I hope that in certain contexts this will continue.
I must right away say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury that I would not particularly want to support his amendment, because if we are to have this clause in the Bill as it is, I think that we ought to have the control and guidelines from the Secretary of State. I accept that my hon. Friend has no doubt tabled the amendment as a probing amendment so that we can find out the intentions of the Minister.
It was also important in an earlier debate to discuss the whole issue of the SDA and the Minister's guidelines in the context of the present high unemployment in Scotland, which we Members of Parliament think it important to bring down as soon as possible. If that is to be done in part through the SDA, the chosen instrument of the Government, it must have power to carry out its operations and we must continue the Secretary of State's present power to set the guidelines read out by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw. These will affect the operations conducted from its headquarters in Glasgow.
As other hon. Members have said, there will be the constraint of the Treasury guidelines coming to the SDA through the Secretary of State. That in itself will be a control. We shall be interested to hear over what time the Minister expects to have this control over the SDA. Is it to be over the period of a Parliament, or would he expect to have much closer control, almost month by month, or major incident by major incident, of what investment the SDA might make at any one time?
We must discuss this matter in the context of the amendment and the clause. If I were starting from scratch I should much prefer to see the major industrial development in Scotland, crucial as it is, carried out by an extension of the Scottish Economic Planning Department, which has been most successful in continuing the able work of the Department of Trade and Industry. I believe that enlarged Scottish Office control would be more effective than the present system, but we must discuss what we have, and that is the SDA. I hope that the Minister will go into detail, because this is one of the crucial clauses for the long-term future of Scotland, which is bound to revolve around the country's industrial development.
The SDA has made an impressive start, although there are one or two aspects with which I am not in sympathy, such as the purchase of companies and the insistence on an equity shareholding as a condition of providing loan capital.

Dr. Bray: There is no insistence on an equity shareholding as a condition. If the hon. Gentleman asks the SDA, it will be able to quote him a number of instances in which it does not have equity.

Mr. Monro: I did not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman or the Committee. There is not 100 per cent. insistence, but now and again the SDA is very keen to have an equity shareholding in return for a loan. That is not strictly how I should like to see what is essentially a Government Department becoming involved in an industry.
If we are going as far as we are, it is right that the Government control and guidelines are maintained, and therefore I do not want to see the amendment made. But it has given us a valuable opportunity to discuss the issue and to highlight in the context of industrial development in Scotland, particularly with the SDA guidelines, how complicated the whole matter is becoming when we should be looking for simplicity.
9.45 p.m.
With the Highlands and Islands Board, the Scottish Development Agency, and the continuing operation of the SEPD and the local authority development committees, it often seems to take longer for


industrialists to decide whether to go ahead with a development project. Here, again, I hope that within the guidelines the Secretary of State will insist that the SDA moves as rapidly as possible to a conclusion on whether financial assistance is to be made to any particular industry.
If this were a Bill in which we were initiating constructive progress, I should like to see it being brought forward to enhance and develop the authority of the SEPD and to maintain further control in that direction, rather than between the Secretary of State and the SDA. But that is not the way the Bill is drafted, and we have to take it as it is. If it is put this way, on balance I think that we should not accept the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: I think that the House of Commons would look collectively ridiculous if we were to leave Clause 40, on national pay policy, and all that that entails, for discussion in the House of Lords and did not get round to it here. I hope, therefore, that there will be time for Clause 40 tonight, and I shall make an effort in that direction.
I am amazed by the attitude of the Conservative Front Bench. I can just possibly understand some of the Conservatives' reasons, but that they should vote against Clause 36 indicates to me that they must be out of their collective minds, or off their collective nuts. But perhaps it is not for me to criticise how people vote, and I shall therefore confine myself to asking my hon. Friend the Minister of State two questions.
The first concerns subsection 2(d). He knows that I represent the new town of Livingston, and I am asking for a factual view of how new towns such as Livingston, East Kilbride, Glenrothes and so on will be responsible to a United Kingdom Treasury, and what relations they are to have, under the clause, with the Scottish Assembly.
My second question relates to something that we discussed in some detail last night. Surely the amendment as to whether we have guidelines or directions turns in part on how the Civil Service is likely to interpret guidelines and directions, and here again I ask the Minister of State for a factual answer. How do civil servants interpret guidelines and how

do they interpret directions? Is there not an argument for making it crystal clear that these are in fact directions? If the civil servants' priority loyalty is not to United Kingdom Ministers but to Ministers in the Scottish Assembly, and if these are to be guidelines, surely any sense of control of this kind, either from Great George Street or Whitehall, becomes a sheer illusion.
I attach very great importance to whether these are guidelines or directions precisely because of this issue of the double loyalty of the Civil Service. If they are to be guidelines, frankly, I believe that civil servants working for Ministers in the Assembly will feel very free to take rather lightly anything coming from Great George Street, the Treasury, or Whitehall.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) is not here, but I must say that it is not very fait to say that people such as myself who put forward views of this kind are great centralisers. Let us be acquitted of this, because some of us believe in bringing government closer to the people through the regions. This can be done by various modifications of existing economic policy.
Let us not say that there are centralisers and devolutionists. It is not as simple as that. When it comes to the devolving of power, people like myself claim that we are the best devolutionists of all, because we are devolving to units smaller than the Scottish Assembly.
Do not let us have this argument at this time of night. I have to defend myself against glib slogans, but that is not the argument. There are different ways of going about the devolving of our decision making. I therefore ask what in terms of the amendment is the likely effect on the Civil Service.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) have rightly concentrated on the precise meaning of the word "guidelines" and why that particular word should have been chosen as opposed to "directions". That is indeed at the heart of the matter. Although it might seem rather a fine shading, we all


know that the truth resides in nuances. We have to get clear exactly why the nuance which distinguishes "guideline" from "direction" is being used here.
One of the reasons why the Government have chosen to use the word "guidelines" with regard to what the Scottish Secretary is to take from the Secretary of State—not necessarily what the SDA has to take from the Secretary of State—is that the use of that word allows the Minister of State to pretend to those who want to see the maximisation of freedom of action of a Scottish Assembly that power is not being held tightly for very long. At the same time he can pretend to those who want Parliament to retain control that, because they are guidelines, control is being retained in Parliament.
Therefore, the Minister is trying to tread a rather uneasy wire. On the one hand he is trying to throw sops to the SNP and his SNP-inclined supporters while at the same time trying to tell the majority of the Cabinet and his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Beck Benches: "Do not worry. We shall have control of the guidelines after all." I am paying the hon. Gentleman a compliment by attributing to him the possession of a certain subtlety of mind.

Mr. Budgen: We should prefer the truth.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend puts a rather harsher interpretation on it. But this question has already been answered during the debate.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said that guidelines did not need to be toughened up in the way that the amendment proposes. He said "Look at the firemen. They have guidelines. They had to stick to 10 per cent. They were only guidelines but they are being ground into the dust and at the end of the day they will have to accept the 10 per cent." The hon. Gentleman was therefore saying that we should not strengthen the guidelines.
But the fallacy in that argument is that of comparing the powers of the Scottish Assembly with the powers of the firemen's union. The reason why the firemen will in the end accept their guidelines is that the power of public opinion

will compel them to do so. But in Scotland the Assembly will be manipulating public opinion. Therefore, the Assembly will not have to give in to those guidelines if it does not want to do so. That was the fallacy in the argument of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that we need not worry about the fact that the word "guidelines" was very vague. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) will certainly notice that it is those most in favour of that which we most detest who are in favour of the word "guidelines".
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns said that the word "guidelines" was all right because, under the block grant system and through that system, there would be a tight financial rein put on a Scottish Assembly and that we did not have to go further for that reason. But, as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw pointed out, the block grant will not be the only source of finance available to a Scottish Assembly. Even if it were, I should not agree with my hon. Friend. But there are powers, which, alas, we did not have time to debate because of this obscene guillotine, to vary taxes in Scotland and to require local authoritiesc to increase rates in Scotland, so the Scottish Assembly will indeed have power to vary taxes—

The First Deputy Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me why we should be discussing this clause when the Committee has an amendment before it?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns pointed out that the word "guidelines" was sufficiently strong because, under the block grant, the Government would be able to control the Scottish Assembly. I was pointing out that his argument was fallacious because the block grant was not the only means of raising money and that taxation was another.
But, either way, if it wanted to the Scottish Assembly could get round the block grant—either by raising more money in Scotland are even by borrowing money outside Scotland, with the consent


of the appropriate Minister of the Crown. But I have no doubt that, if it was for a Socialist reason and we had a Socialist Secretary of State, it would be permitted. After all, who would he be to forbid a Scottish Assembly going down that path? I believe that the guidelines are not strong enough, and that is why I support the amendment.
However, the main question that I should like the Minister of State to answer concerns what would happen if the Scottish Assembly ignored the guidelines. I know that he will say that he believes it will be a responsible body. That is one of his arguments. I do not dispute that, but what if the unthinkable happened and an Assembly said that it did not accept the guidelines?
We heard in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) that the SNP would brook no interference in the rights of a Scottish Assembly over the SDA.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Hear, hear.

Mr. Sproat: I am glad to learn that I have not misrepresented the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, bearing in mind how he misrepresents so many other hon. Members.
The SNP says that it will seek to get round these guidelines. I want the Minister of State to say what would happen if, with a Socialist Secretary of State here, a Socialist Administration in the Scottish Assembly, for reasons of wishing to extend nationalisation or for other reasons dear to the hearts of a Socialist majority in this House, wished to break the guidelines.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman raises the question of a Scottish Administration not complying with the guidelines. He will be aware of the power available to the Secretary of State under Clause 37. Unfortunately, he voted against it, so he voted against the very provision which would operate to achieve the action that he requires.

Mr. Sproat: I was voting against the fact that the Government, by their imposition of the guillotine prevented any debate on this important matter. This is what we were voting about.
In any case, quite apart from that, the fact of the matter is that if the Socialist Scottish Assembly set its heart on breaking the guidelines, either it would be allowed to do so and that would go against the spirit and the letter of this Bill, or it would not be allowed to do so and we should have the discord, dispute and the rest of the aggravation that we Conservatives have been predicting. The Minister of State called us Cassandras the other night—

Mr. John Smith: indicated assent.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Sproat: The Minister says "Yes", showing that his knowledge of mythology is as bad as his knowledge of politics. The thing about Cassandra was that she was always right. Here again we go back to the rock-like immovable problems that are a recipe for disaster, discord, dispute and endless conflicts between Westminster and Edinburgh. This will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Small: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) referred to Cassandra. I shall not follow him along that line. I will take the line of the artist with a brush drawing this clause, and I think that the young Goya would be the best comparison.
Goya looked towards private patrons, one of whom was the Duke of Wellington. That painting is beautiful and is internationally recognised as one of quality. As time went on private patrons removed themselves from this area and artists went to asylums for their models. We are dealing here with guidelines and the Secretary of State giving directions. A patron can give directions to an artist about what he wants.
In the context of this Bill and its relationship to the Scottish Development Agency we are dealing with the Old Testament of the past and the New Testament of this clause. The matter of preparing guidelines is interesting and the SDA has been taken in totally. The chairman, Sir William Gray, was on the hustings with me for 14 years and he is a constituent of mine. What is the Agency's job? It is to provide economic stimulation in terms of regeneration in Scotland. The whole idea of the SDA in its short active life has been to make it a viable institution, and for that purpose it must


have a degree of freedom over its own activities.
I am very doubtful about the Secretary of State or the Treasury laying down guidelines for the SDA and saying that it should have directions. Direction is a most difficult thing. I have been directed all my life to read the Bible, but I could solve the National Debt if I could put a tax on knowledge of the Bible.
This is a straightforward attitude of the SDA becoming viable. If the Treasury gets its hands on the SDA, it is likely to bring in such a restrictive climate as to take away the solid body of the institution. The SDA, which is operating for the benefit of the Scottish population, should have a degree of freedom rather than be directed. Its relationship with the sleeping warriors and whoever else will vote in the referendum is important. I cannot give any guarantee about votes for this Bill. We have all the brains, the lawyers and the clever men in this place.
If I were a Freud or a Jung, or a McGlashan or a MacDougall, I could come along here and give a lecture on psycho-analysis—

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I am grateful to the hon. Member, but perhaps he could return to the amendment.

Mr. Small: I am dealing with the guidelines.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: Since the hon. Gentleman has now turned to psychoanalysis, can he tell the Committee how the Conservative Party can put forward any view on the existence of the SDA when it is on record as wanting to abolish it?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will leave the subject of psychoanalysis.

Mr. Small: I am very tempted, Mr. Godman Irvine, to deal with the shortcomings of the Tory Party. I do not really know what is the true SNP attitude to the Bill. I was seeking to deal with the directions or instructions to be given to those who will operate these matters on behalf of the SDA and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I only hope that they will have full freedom to promote developments that will give a great stimulus to the

Scottish people. I wish to pay tribute to any institutions which will have that effect.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: I could not hope to take up the interesting remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small). On the other side of the political spectrum, I find it most difficult to understand the Conservative point of view on this matter. We all know the Conservatives' record of opposition to the Scottish Development Agency and their wrecking attempts during the passage of that legislation. We all know how little the Conservatives are concerned over the economic welfare of Scotland. Conservative Members sought to vote out Clause 36. Having joined together to defeat Clause 1, one would have thought that they now realise what they are doing.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: The hon. Lady might like to know that I am prepared to vote against every clause in the Bill.

Mrs. Bain: That news comes as no revelation to anybody in the Committee.
Let us try to examine what the policy of the Conservative Party is on this aspect. We are dealing with decentralisation versus centralisation. What is peculiar about the Conservative case is that Conservative Members are arguing for strong centralisation. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) had the courage to say that he felt there should be a variety of economic policies operating in a United Kingdom context. He joins with us in our opposition to the amendment, and we hope that we can look to other sensible Conservative Members to go through the correct Lobby. If the Conservative Party is seeking to deny freedom to a Scottish body to operate in a Scottish context, that is something that the SNP will not tolerate.
Let me try to deal with the economic power of the SDA. That Agency was set up to eradicate many of the economic difficulties in Scotland. Many of us believe that the Agency does not have sufficient powers or adequate money allocated to it, but we believe that at least it is a step in the right direction. Much as we should like to see the powers of the Agency expanded—and they will


be expanded—we do not want to see the Agency limited in development by the advent of Conservative daydreams.
It is difficult for many of us to listen to arguments advanced by those who pretend to support economic power to be given to the Assembly but who try to justify the status quo. Fundamentally, their view is based on seeking to justify the situation as it is. However, there are 200,000 people in Scotland who do not work, and it is difficult to justify the remarks of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) when so many Scots people are on the dole.
I should like to quote some statistics set out in yesterday's Official Report at col. 602 of Written Answers. We there see the figures of the percentage increase in unemployment between March 1974 and October 1977. In that period, the figure in Leven and Methil increased by 91·1 per cent. In Livingston there has been the highest increase, of 257·9 per cent. The same statistics show that by 10th November 1977 9,435 youngsters in Scotland had never had a job since leaving school. In Strathclyde Region, which contains my constituency, there were 73,407 unemployed in November 1975 while in 1977 the figure was 109,456—an increase of 44·1 per cent. In Central Region, which is an important area for my constituency because of the commuter aspect, there were 5,786 people unemployed in November 1975 and 7,696 in November 1977—an increase of 33 per cent. No doubt the Central Region statistics will increase following the announcement affecting training colleges in Scotland.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Lady answer the question that I put to her hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), who failed to answer? Does she know of any industrialist or trade union leader in Scotland who thinks that this utterly deplorable state of affairs would be improved if her party's policies and separation were implemented?

Mrs. Bain: I cannot think of anyone in Scotland in that category who sees much hope in the Tories coming to power, in view of their attitude to public expenditure and the fact that the

Conservatives have failed to publish their policies for people in Scotland—in contrast to the Scottish National Party. We are not afraid to put our policies before industrialists and trade unionists.

Mr. Crawford: No doubt my hon. Friend is aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) refused to answer when I asked him to name the companies which, he alleges, will leave Scotland on independence. He refused to do so.

Mrs. Bain: No doubt the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) likes to look at the example of Seagram in Quebec, which said that it would withdraw if Rene Levesque won a majority, but when that happened Seagram was the first to say that it would stay. This kind of scaremongering is irrelevant to the Scottish scene.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): This is an important point on unemployment figures. Since the hon. Lady has mentioned the Central Region and seems to be projecting the argument that in any independent, separate Scotland there would not be unemployment, no doubt she will not mind my asking, when the scarcest commodity in the industrialised world is a new job, how a country with 5½ million people would be able to compete for new jobs against highly industrialised and larger nations. If she believes that it could do so, will she tell me why unemployment in Sweden, which has a population of 7½ million, is now going up when, for fairly obvious reasons, there is a recession right through the industrialised world?
Does the hon. Lady expect Scots—especially those in the Central Region, which has a United Kingdom-based industrial economy, not a Scottish-based industrial economy—to believe that in a separate Scotland they would be able to compete for new jobs against all these industrialised nations?

Mrs. Bain: The length of the hon. Gentleman's intervention reveals his sensitivity on this issue. I have never said that independence would be an immediate panacea for the problems of Scotland, but we have confidence in our ability to progress alone and to use our resources in a skilled and professional way in the economy, with the kind of planning that


is necessary. We look at the examples of other small nations, and in referring to Sweden the hon. Gentleman should have updated himself because unemployment there is now 3 per cent. If unemployment were 3 per cent. in Scotland, there would be a lot of happy people because it would be a lot lower than it is now.
The onus is still on the centralist parties in the House of Commons to prove that their system works, because it is obvious to all the unemployed in Scotland and in the deprived areas that it does not. I want to quote one more statistic before I close. This is not just temporary unemployment in Scotland. In October 1974, 21,178 people had been out of work for more than a year. By 1977, the figure for that sort of long-term unemployment had reached 44,292. With that kind

of record, what right has the House to try to tell us that its system is good for us? It is a scandal and a curse on humanity to see what is hapening to our country.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) spends all his time chasing unemployed people who need social security benefits. For him to try to deny to the people of Scotland the right to manage their economic affairs is ridiculous. He should be here listening to the debate and trying to justify himself. The hon. Gentleman was so confused in his speech that he ended up being able only to shout and bluster.
The amendment is an attempt to emasculate a Bill that is hardly very virile in the first place.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND BILL

Division List No. 38 [See c. 1465]


Division No. 38]
AYES
[6.54 p.m.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Goodlad, Alastair
Mudd, David


Arnold, Tom
Gorst, John
Nelson, Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Neubert, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Nott, John


Awdry, Daniel
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Banks, Robert
Gray, Hamish
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bell, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon
Page, Richard (Workington)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Grist, Ian
Parkinson, Cecil


Benyon, W.
Grylls, Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Biffen, John
Hall, Sir John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Braine, Sir Bernard
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Raison, Timothy


Brittan, Leon
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hawkins, Paul
Rhodes James, R.


Brooke, Peter
Hodgson, Robin
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brotherton, Michael
Holland, Philip
Ridsdale, Julian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buck, Antony
James, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Budgen, Nick
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Channon, Paul
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Shepherd, Colin


Churchill, W. S.
Kershaw, Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Silvester, Fred


Cockroft, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sims, Roger


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Knox, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Cope, John
Lawson, Nigel
Skeet, T. H. H.


Costain, A. P.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Luce, Richard
Speed, Keith


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert
Spence, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Drayson, Burnaby
MacGregor, John
Sproat, Iain


Dunlop, John
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Stainton, Keith


Durant, Tony
MacMillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson. P. (New Forest)
Stokes, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mather, Carol
Tebbit, Norman


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maude, Angus
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Farr, John
Mawby, Ray
Wakeham, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wall, Patrick


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mayhew, Patrick
Walters, Dennis


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Fookes, Miss Janet
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Weatherill, Bernard


Forman, Nigel
Mills, Peter
Wells, John


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Moate, Roger
Winterton, Nicholas


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Molyneaux, James
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hon George


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Moore, John (Croydon C)



Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Morgan, Geraint
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Spencer le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Anderson, Donald
Campbell, Ian
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Armstrong, Ernest
Canavan, Dennis
Deakins, Eric


Ashley, Jack
Cant, R. B.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Ashton, Joe
Carmichael, Neil
Dempsey, James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cartwright, John
Doig, Peter


Atkinson, Norman
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dormand, J. D.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cohen, Stanley
Dunn, James A.


Bates, Alf
Coleman, Donald
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Beith, A. J.
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ewing, Harry (Stiring)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Boardman, H.
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Flannery, Martin


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Crawford, Douglas
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Crawshaw, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cronin, John
Ford, Ben


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cryer, Bob
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Buchan, Norman
Dalyell, Tam
George, Bruce


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Davidson, Arthur
Gilbert, Dr John







Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, John
Madden, Max
Small, William


Gould, Bryan
Magee, Bryan
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Snape, Peter


Graham, Ted
Marks, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Spriggs, Leslie


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stallard, A. W.


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Steel, Rt Hon David


Grocott, Bruce
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Harrison, Rt Hon Walte.
Mikardo, Ian
Stott, Roger


Hatton, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Henderson, Douglas
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hooson, Emlyn
Mitchell, Austin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Huckfield, Les
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Noble, Mike
Thompson, George


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Oakes, Gordon
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric
Tinn, James


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Orbach, Maurice
Torney, Tom


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Padley, Walter
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


John, Brynmor
Pardoe, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Park, George
Ward, Michael


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Parker, John
Watt, Hamish


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pavitt, Laurie
Weetch, Ken


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Pendry, Tom
Welsh, Andrew


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Penhaligon, David
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Judd, Frank
Radice, Giles
While, James (Pollok)


Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Whitehead, Phillip


Kerr, Russell
Reid, George
Whitlock, William


Kilfedder, James
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wigley, Dafydd


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lambie, David
Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Lamond, James
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rooker, J. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Luard, Evan
Roper, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Woodall, Alec


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Woof, Robert


McCartney, Hugh
Rowlands, Ted
Wrigglesworth, Ian


MacCormick, Iain
Sandelson, Neville
Young, David (Bolton E)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sedgemore, Brian



Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Sever, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mackintosh, John P.
Sillars, James
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Harper.


Maclennan, Robert
Silverman, Julius

Division List No. 39 [See c. 1465]


Division No. 39]
AYES
[7.6 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Cronin, John
Henderson, Douglas


Anderson, Donald
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hooson, Emlyn


Armstrong, Ernest
Cryer, Bob
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Ashton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davidson, Arthur
Huckfield, Les


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Deakins, Eric
Hunter, Adam


Bates, Alf
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Beith, A. J.
Dempsey, James
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Doig, Peter
John, Brynmor


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dormand, J. D.
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Boardman, H.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunn, James A.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ewing, Harry (Stiring)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Judd, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kaufman, Gerald


Buchan, Norman
Flannery, Martin
Kerr, Russell


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kilfedder, James


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Campbell, Ian
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Lambie, David


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lamond, James


Cant, R. B.
George, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Cartwright, John
Gilbert, Dr John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Ginsburg, David
Luard, Evan


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Golding, John
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cohen, Stanley
Gould, Bryan
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Coleman, Donald
Gourlay, Harry
McCartney, Hugh


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Grant, George (Morpeth)
MacCormick, Iain


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Grant, John (Islington C)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Grocott, Bruce
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackintosh, John P.


Crawford, Douglas
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Maclennan, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Hatton, Frank
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)







Madden, Max
Richardson, Miss Jo
Tinn, James


Magee, Bryan
Robinson, Geoffrey
Torney, Tom


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roderick, Caerwyn
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Roper, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Ward, Michael


Mikardo, Ian
Rowlands, Ted
Watt, Hamish


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian
Weetch, Ken


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Sever, John
Welsh, Andrew


Mitchell, Austin
Sillars, James
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silverman, Julius
White, James (Pollok)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Skinner, Dennis
Whitehead, Phillip


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Small, William
Whitlock, William


Noble, Mike
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wigley, Dafydd


Oakes, Gordon
Snape, Peter
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ogden, Eric
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Orbach, Maurice
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Padley, Walter
Steel, Rt Hon David
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pardoe, John
Stott, Roger
Woodall, Alec


Park, George
Strang, Gavin
Woof, Robert


Parker, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Pavitt, Laurie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)



Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Mr. Jim Marshall and Mr. Joseph Harper.


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thompson, George



Reid, George
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)





NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mills, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Goodhart, Philip
Moate, Roger


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Goodhew, Victor
Molyneaux, James


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Gorst, John
Monro, Hector


Awdry, Daniel
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Banks, Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morgan, Geraint


Bell, Ronald
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gray, Hamish
Mudd, David


Benyon, W.
Griffiths, Eldon
Nelson, Anthony


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Neubert, Michael


Biffen, John
Grist, Ian
Nott, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grylls, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Richard (Workington)


Brittan, Leon
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Brooke, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Prior, Rt Hon James


Brotherton, Michael
Hodgson, Robin
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Raison, Timothy


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Buchanan-Smilh, Alick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rhodes James, R.


Buck, Antony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Budgen, Nick
James, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Channon, Paul
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cockroft, John
Kimball, Marcus
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Cope, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Costain, A. P.
Knox, David
Shepherd, Colin


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lawson, Nigel
Shersby, Michael


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Le Marchant, Spencer
Silvester, Fred


Drayson, Burnaby
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sims, Roger


Dunlop, John
Luce, Richard
Sinclair, Sir George


Durant, Tony
McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dykes, Hugh
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Spence, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
MacMillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sproat, Iain


Farr, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Marten, Neil
Stokes, John


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Forman, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mayhew, Patrick
Wakeham, John


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Wall, Patrick







Walters, Dennis
Winterton, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Warren, Kenneth
Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Peter Morrison and


Weatherill, Bernard
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Wells, John
Younger, Hon George

Division List No. 40 [See c. 1466]


Division No. 40]
AYES
[7.19 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Graham, Ted
Palmer, Arthur


Anderson, Donald
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Pardoe, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Grant, John (Islington C)
Park, George


Ashton, Joe
Grocott, Bruce
Parker, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Harper, Joseph
Pavitt, Laurie


Atkinson, Norman
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pendry, Tom


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hatton, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Bates, Alf
Heffer, Eric S
Radice, Giles


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Huckfield, Les
Robinson, Geoffrey


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Roper, John


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
John, Brynmor
Rowlands, Ted


Buchan, Norman
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sandelson, Neville


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sever, John


Campbell, Ian
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Silverman, Julius


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Skinner, Dennis


Cant, R. B.
Judd, Frank
Small, William


Cartwright, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Kerr, Russell
Snape, Peter


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Cohen, Stanley
Lambie, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Coleman, Donald
Lamond, James
Stallard, A. W.


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stott, Roger


Craigen. Jim (Maryhill)
Luard, Evan
Strang, Gavin


Crawshaw, Richard
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Cronin, John
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Cryer, Bob
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dalyell, Tam
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Davidson, Arthur
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Maclennan, Robert
Torney, Tom


Deakins, Eric
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Madden, Max
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dempsey, James
Magee, Bryan
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Doig, Peter
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ward, Michael


Dormand, J. D.
Marks, Kenneth
Weetch, Ken


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dunn, James A.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
White, James (Pollok)


Ewing, Harry (Stiring)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mikardo, Ian
Whitlock, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Flannery, Martin
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mitchell, Austin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Woof, Robert


George, Bruce
Noble, Mike
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Gilbert, Dr John
Oakes, Gordon
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ginsburg, David
Ogden, Eric



Golding, John
Orbach, Maurice
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gould, Bryan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Jim Marshall and


Gourlay, Harry
Padley, Walter
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brittan, Leon
Costain, A. P.


Arnold, Tom
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Crawford, Douglas


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brooke, Peter
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Brotherton, Michael
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Awdry, Daniel
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Drayson, Burnaby


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Bryan, Sir Paul
Dunlop, John


Banks, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Durant, Tony


Bell, Ronald
Buck, Antony
Dykes, Hugh


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Budgen, Nick
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Benyon,W.
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Churchill, W. S.
Eyre, Reginald


Biffen, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cockroft, John
Fairgrieve, Russell


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Farr, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Cope, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey







Fletcher. Alex (Edinburgh N)
Macfarlane, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John
Shepherd, Colin


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Shersby, Michael


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
MacMillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sillars, James


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Silvester, Fred


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sims, Roger


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Marten, Neil
Sinclair, Sir George


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mather, Carol
Skeet, T. H. H.


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Speed, Keith


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spence, John


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mayhew, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sproat, Iain


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stainton, Keith


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Griffiths, Eldon
Moate, Roger
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Grist, Ian
Molyneaux, James
Stokes, John


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morgan, Geraint
Tebbit, Norman


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hawkins, Paul
Mudd, David
Thompson, George


Henderson. Douglas
Nelson, Anthony
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Hodgson, Robin
Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, John


Holland, Philip
Nott, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wall, Patrick


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Walters, Dennis


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Richard (Workington)
Warren, Kenneth


James, David
Pattie, Geoffrey
Watt, Hamish


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Weatherill, Bernard


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wells, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Welsh, Andrew


Kilfedder, James
Raison, Timothy
Wigley, Dafydd


Kimball, Marcus
Reid, George
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Winterton, Nicholas


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rhodes James, R.
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Knox, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Lawson, Nigel
Rifkind, Malcolm
Younger, Hon George


Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)



Luce, Richard
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacCormick, Iain
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Mr. Jim Lester.


McCrindle, Robert
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Division List No. 41 [See c. 1466]


Division No. 41]
AYES
[7.30 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Anderson, Donald
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dempsey, James
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Ashton, Joe
Doig, Peter
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dormand, J. D.
Judd, Frank


Atkinson, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.
Kaufman, Gerald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Russell


Bates, Alf
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lambie, David


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Flannery, Martin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boardman, H.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Luard, Evan


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McCartney, Hugh


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Buchan, Norman
Gilbert, Dr John
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, Ian
Gould, Bryan
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Canavan, Dennis
Gourlay, Harry
Madden, Max


Cant, R. B.
Graham, Ted
Magee, Bryan


Cartwright, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Grant, John (Islington C)
Marks, Kenneth


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Coleman, Donald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hatton, Frank
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hooson, Emlyn
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mitchell, Austin


Cronin, John
Huckfield, Les
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, Adam
Noble, Mike


Davidson, Arthur
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Oakes, Gordon


Davies. Ifor (Gower)
John, Brynmor
Ogden, Eric


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Orbach, Maurice







Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Sedgemore, Brian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Padley, Walter
Sever, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Palmer, Arthur
Silverman, Julius
Ward, Michael


Pardoe, John
Skinner, Dennis
Weetch, Ken


Park, George
Small, William
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Parker, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
White, James (Pollok)


Pavitt, Laurie
Snape, Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


Pendry, Tom
Spearing, Nigel
Whitlock, William


Penhaligon, David
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Radice, Giles
Steel, Rt Hon David
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Richardson, Miss Jo
Stott, Roger
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Roderick, Caerwyn
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woof, Robert


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Roper, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)



Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Tinn, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rowlands, Ted
Torney, Tom
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Sandelson, Neville
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Mr. A. W Stallard.




NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Griffiths, Eldon
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Arnold, Tom
Grist, Ian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Grylls, Michael
Reid, George


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Awdry, Daniel
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Rhodes James, R.


Banks, Robert
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bell, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Benyon, W
Henderson, Douglas
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hodgson, Robin
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Biffen, John
Holland, Philip
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Shersby, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sillars, James


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Silvester, Fred


Brittan, Leon
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W' df'd)
Sims, Roger


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Sinclair, Sir George


Brotherton, Michael
Kilfedder, James
Skeet, T. H. H.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Speed, Keith


Buck, Anthony
Knox, David
Spence, John


Budgen, Nick
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sproat, Iain


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacCormick, Iain
Stainton, Keith


Cockroft, John
McCrindle, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
MacGregor, John
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Cope, John
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Stokes, John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tebbit, Norman


Drayson, Burnaby
Marten, Neil
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dunlop, John
Mather, Carol
Thompson, George


Dykes, Hugh
Mawby, Ray
Wakeham, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Mayhew, Patrick
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Eyre, Reginald
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Watt, Hamish


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mills, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Moate, Roger
Wells, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Molyneaux, James
Welsh, Andrew


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Monro, Hector
Wigley, Dafydd


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Morgan, Geraint
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Younger, Hon George


Goodhew, Victor
Neubert, Michael



Gorst, John
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mrs. Margaret Bain and Mr. Douglas Crawford.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Page, Richard (Workington)



Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Pattie, Geoffrey

Division List No. 42 [See c.1466]


Division No. 42]
AYES
[7.41 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Boardman, H.
Cartwright, John


Anderson, Donald
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Armstrong, Ernest
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Ashton, Joe
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cohen, Stanley


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Coleman, Donald


Atkinson, Norman
Buchan, Norman
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bates, Alf
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)


Beith, A. J.
Campbell, Ian
Crawshaw, Richard


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Canavan, Dennis
Cronin, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cant, R. B.
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)







Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Robinson, Geoffrey


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roper, John


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted


Doig, Peter
Luard, Evan
Sandelson, Neville


Dormand, J. D.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sedgemore, Brian


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Sever, John


Dunn, James A.
McCartney, Hugh
Silverman, Julius


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Skinner, Dennis


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Small, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Spriggs, Leslie


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Madden, Max
Stallard, A. W.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Magee, Bryan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stott, Roger


George, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Gilbert, Dr John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Golding, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Gould, Bryan
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Graham, Ted
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tinn, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, Austin
Torney, Tom


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Ward, Michael


Harper, Joseph
Noble, Mike
Weetch, Ken


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Oakes, Gordon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hatton, Frank
Ogden, Eric
White, James (Pollok)


Heffer, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice
Whitehead, Phillip


Hooson, Emlyn
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Padley, Walter
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Huckfield, Les
Pardoe, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Park, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parker, John
Woof, Robert


Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton E)


John, Brynmor
Penhaligon, David



Johnson, James (Hull West)
Radice, Giles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Mr. Peter Snape and


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. Jim Marshall.


Jones. Alec (Rhondda)






NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Arnold, Tom
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morgan, Geraint


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Awdry, Daniel
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Neubert, Michael


Banks, Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bell, Ronald
Grist, Ian
Page, Richard (Workington)


Benyon, W.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hannam, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Reid, George


Braine, Sir Bernard
Henderson, Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brittan, Leon
Hodgson, Robin
Rhodes James, R.


Brotherton, Michael
Holland, Philip
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Buck, Anthony
Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Budgen, Nick
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sillars, James


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Knox, David
Silvester, Fred


Cockroft, John
MacCormick, Iain
Sims, Roger


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Sproat, Iain


Drayson, Burnaby
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Dunlop, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Dykes, Hugh
Marten, Neil
Tebbit, Norman


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Eyre, Reginald
Mayhew, Patrick
Thompson, George


Fairgrieve, Russell
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wakeham, John


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moate, Roger
Walters, Dennis


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Molyneaux, James
Warren, Kenneth


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Monro, Hector
Watt, Hamish







Weatherill, Bernard
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wells, John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Mrs. Margaret Bain and Mr. Douglas Crawford.



Welsh, Andrew
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)



Wigley, Dafydd
Younger, Hon George

10.15 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I have heard most of the debate and I understand that it is on a fairly narrow matter. We are discussing an amendment. I do not know why I should always have to remind the Committee of its rules.
The Bill says that, in respect of the Scottish Development Agency, the Highland and Islands Development Board and certain other organisations, the Secretary of State shall, with the approval of the Treasury, prepare guidelines for their operations. The amendment would delete the word "guidelines" and put in "directions".
It is amazing that we have heard so many facets of the whole Scottish scene. There was an intellectual argument between my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). The best reply to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire was in a pamphlet called "Don't Butcher Scotland's Future" written by a Mr. James Sillars.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about our being in a new, complex and difficult field. He said that we were making constitutions and that it would be easy to make mistakes. As far as guidelines are concerned, the SDA is working under guidelines now. Some people may think that they are too restrictive, but they should appreciate, on the basis of the arguments that they have put forward in the past, that we want to give the Assembly as much freedom as possible in relation to the SDA compatible with the integrity of the whole economy of the United Kingdom and justice to other parts of the United Kingdom which feel that Scotland is getting one step ahead.
It was the Scots who pioneered the idea of a development agency. Wales came later. We did so because we felt that there were special problems that required this special instrument. I have been sitting here preening myself. I never thought that I would hear the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) saying how good the SDA was and urging that we should concentrate more power within the SEPD. I remember what the Opposition did when we discussed this matter. They opposed the powers of the SDA and

they had some help in Committee from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), the SNP representative, who joined the Tories to retain the cuts in the powers of the SDA that were made by another place.
Scottish National Party Members have very convenient memories. I have a very good memory, and I am determined to remind them of their faults and follies. especially when I hear them telling off the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) in respect of a vote. Let them beware of what Burns said:
Gently scan your brother man".
We know something about what guidelines mean. We are working successfully under the guidelines, and there has been praise for the SDA. There is no conflict and no confrontation at present. Certain Conservative Members are suggesting that we should go in for directions. We have some experience of direction, and we know that it is the demands that a Minister of the Crown should issue directions that really cause the trouble. It is an indication that things have gone wrong. If we are to proceed with constant crises and emergencies, we shall have constant confrontation.

Mr. Raison: The fact is that the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 uses the phrase "give directions". That phrase is embodied in the whole of the Act.

Mr. Ross: The SDA also has guidelines, which were put in at the express wish of the Conservative Party and the House of Commons generally from the United Kingdom point of view. Where there are guidelines, as long as people keep within them they have full freedom of action, but once we have constant direction people do not know where they are and freedom goes.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) should appreciate that by urging us to leave out guidelines and work only on the basis of directions he is asking for confrontation and trouble. I should have liked to go into some of the other matters that have been raised and the general arugment about the efficacy of the policies of the SNP and about how wonderful the SNP says everything would be. I remind Scottish National Party


Members that it is very dangerous to deceive people into thinking that we can achieve miracles by some strange use of words. That was all we had from the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain).
We have something practical in the SDA. I have no doubt that it will grow and expand. I am glad that hon. Members have said that it has been useful. The SDA, working together with the SEDP, is using the powers that we gave it under Section 7 of the Industry Act and is working very successfully. We have seen things happening in Ayrshire, for example in Kilmarnock, Stewarton and Cumnock, and all round Scotland. That has been for the benefit of the local people, through the use of powers well within the guidelines. Let us stick to the guidelines.

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for Scotland for more than eight years. I ask him a question to which I genuinely do not know the answer. From his previous experience, does he think that there would be a problem about the double loyalty of civil servants to Assembly Ministers and to the Secretary of State and United Kingdom Ministers? I ask this because he has great experience.

Mr. Ross: My experience with civil servants—some of whom had been seconded to the Scottish Office from the Department of Industry when we took over the Section 7 powers—was that their loyalty was to the job they were doing and to working within guidelines that had been laid down. There was no conflict at all.

Mr. Pym: Whatever comments the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) may have made about the conduct of the debate, I have heard every word and can say that it has undeniably ranged very widely, covering practically the whole clause. That is hardly surprising, because the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) goes to the heart of the matter, singling out the words "prepare guidelines" and proposing alternative words. I wish to follow many of the matters that have been raised.
One very basic question is raised under the clause, namely, whether the new

separate Scottish Administration that is to be created should have any regional powers. That is a very important question in the context of the Bill, because what is at risk is the unity of the United Kingdom economy and its possible fragmentation by different treatment being accorded to different parts of the United Kingdom. Such a possibility must cause grave anxiety, certainly in the Department of Employment and the Scottish Office and, I should think, everywhere in Scotland.
Industry, both north and south of the border, but especially north of the border, is clear as to the dangers. It has said on many occasions that it believes that any division of responsibility on the economic front between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom will lead to falling investment and put jobs at risk.
That is an extremely important matter because, as has been said many times, the unemployment problem in Scotland is more serious than it is in England or the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Henderson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the important point which he is making suggests that the present system has not worked satisfactorily for Scotland and that it is high time we had a chance to do it ourselves and solve our own problems?

Mr. Pym: If we are to make a change, let us be sure that we make a change for the better, not for the worse. I think the Minister will agree that industrial interests in Scotland have made the position very clear. Naturally, I hope that he will take just as much notice of those representations as of every other representation which is made.
It is true that the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board are uniquely Scottish bodies performing functions different from those of any other body or agency in the rest of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, those functions are very much involved in the Scottish aspect of regional policy, and the importance of that cannot be exaggerated.
Once again, the dilemma here arises on account of the type of devolution proposed in the Bill—a mini-Parliament and its own Cabinet. It has been represented tonight from both sides of the Committee that conflict will arise. Indeed, the hon.


Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) spoke of a landmine of conflict developing on the economic front. I wish to add another aspect to that, because, if I have read the Bill aright, the appointment of members to the Scottish Development Agency will be done by the Assembly because the 1975 Act is a devolved matter under Schedule 11. Therefore, the Scottish Prime Minister will appoint the members and the United Kingdom Prime Minister, through the Secretary of State for Scotland, will lay down the guidelines. That seems to be something of a contradiction.
Such a division of responsibility on the economic front will in itself tend to lead, or mislead, people in Scotland to think that the Assembly will exercise some powerful or even decisive influence over economic policy and industrial growth. But it cannot and will not exercise that degree of influence, because the clause is intended to give the new Scottish Executive some element, but only some element, of influence, and I do not believe that this will please anyone.
The Government should transfer either a well-defined area of real responsibility on the economic front or none at all. I think that they might have had some encouragement from the Stormont experience to be more positive in their devolvement of economic responsibilities. However, the circumstances of Northern Ireland were and are different, so perhaps the comparison is not much help. In any case, the Scottish and English economies are much more integrated—that was the word used by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan)—and much more interdependent than are the economies of Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The Scottish and English economies are treated as one and thought of as one, with the advantages of larger scale and greater diversity referred to just now by the Under-Secretary of State.
If there began to grow up a discrepancy between the treatment of industry in Scotland or the assistance given to industry in Scotland and that given, say, to the North-East of England, decisions about the location of industry would be affected, and that certainly has implications for jobs and new factories in Scotland.

Mr. Stokes: I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that in the heart of the industrial Midlands and the workshop of England there is already, before the Bill is passed, great feeling that so much work has been taken from the Midlands and placed in Scotland in order to favour the Labour Party, the hope being that votes will be gathered thereby.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Pym: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Even with a partial handover such as is proposed in the Bill, a partial handover of responsibility on the economic front will not be to Scotland's advantage. As almost all the information most clearly indicates, the economic benefit to Scotland of the Union of the United Kingdom is greater than to Wales or England. It would be most serious if that were to be put at risk. We know, for instance, that the people of Scotland pay less tax. In so far as that is a reflection of their lesser degree of prosperity it is to be regretted, but we know that the percentage of public expenditure per head of population is higher in Scotland than in England.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) recently asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the percentages and was told that public expenditure per head in Scotland financed from Votes exceeded that in England in 1975–76 by about 25 or 30 per cent., which is a large difference. As recently as 1974–75, Scotland received £146 million out of the £473 million granted for regional aid, which was a substantial proportion. It means that the assistance to industry per head of employees in the assisted areas was £68 in Scotland compared with £37 in England, or nearly double.

Mr. Henderson: rose—

Mr. Pym: No I have given way already to the hon. Gentleman. I am making an important point about the share of the grant received by Scotland which is made available to help regional policy.
We also know that in the 1960s about 70,000 to 80,000 extra jobs were created due to the action of the Labour Government. A similar number of jobs flowed to Scotland as a result of action taken by the Conservative Administration


1970. To some extent that accounts for what my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) was saying.
In Scotland the political scene is much judged by the unemployment figures and the policies that are available. Due to the centralisation of policy over the regions and the United Kingdom economy, Scotland has benefited to a considerable extent. Therefore, we are dealing in the clause with the economic life of Scotland and the livelihood of every family in Scotland.

Mr. Sillars: If we have benefited to such a great extent, why is it that unemployment, which used to be about 50,000 in 1951, is approaching 200,000 in 1977–78?

Mr. Pym: The short answer is that there has been a Labour Government for three and a half years.
In this context, it is dangerous to talk of preparing guidelines to divide responsibility for regional aid. It will be done as proposed in the Bill under the aegis of the Secretary of State, who will become an emaciated figure if the Bill becomes an Act. To begin with, he will have to get approval from the Treasury. The Secretary of State's power base in the Cabinet will vanish if the Bill is enacted. He will have no authority worth calling the name. He might as well hand over responsibility to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first place. If he survives if the Bill becomes an Act, he will be something of a eunuch, which is not the sort of character much respected in Scotland.
It is clear that the Executive and the Assembly could not extend or alter the functions of the SDA. It will merely be another set of politicians and civil servants interfering in commerce and industry. There is too much interference already. This is a good example of the extra tier of government argument. It will impose more forms of more meddling, which is inimical to prosperity.
I want to raise some of the problems of the guidelines and the proposals for having them. The existing guidelines run to 12 pages. What do the Government have in mind by way of division? I do not think that it will be easy. The existing guidelines cover such matters as the

importance of job creation, the needs of the rural economy, regard for profitability, opportunities to take over companies without their agreement and a whole range of other matters. How are the guidelines to be constructed so that the Assembly will know how to act? If they are too detailed, it will hardly be devolution because it will be giving responsibility with one hand and taking it away with the other. If the guidelines are not detailed, why bother to have them at all?

Mr. Crawford: rose—

Mr. Pym: No, I cannot give way. We have had three and a half hours already. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed.

Mr. Crawford: Scared.

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman has made his speech.
What is the status of the guidelines? What does subsection (4) mean when it states:
A Scottish Secretary shall exercise the powers with respect to which guidelines are prepared under this section so as to give effect to the guidelines."?
What happens if the Scottish Secretary does not act in that manner? This point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). Who decides whether the Scottish Secretary has acted in that way? The Scottish Development Agency will have two masters. Will it not play one off against the other? It could perfectly well challenge the Scottish Secretary and maintain that he was not acting in accordance with the guidelines, or that he was going beyond them. What does the SDA do—appeal to the eunuch or to the Scottish Prime Minister? How is this to work?
Is it sensible to transfer some responsibility and then try to control the exercise of that responsibility? What happens if a Labour Secretary of State tries to direct a Tory Scottish Secretary to take an equity holding in a firm or to take over a firm such as Fairey? That is an unimaginable nightmare of a situation, but it could happen. I only hope that I can be there to hear the reply by the Tory Scottish Secretary.
We feel that the clause is a nonsensical compromise. There is no justification for the middle course of transferring to Treasury control some part of regional


policy. It is a half-way house that will not work. It will cause conflict, difficulty and differences. If the Government wanted a devolved SDA or Highlands and Islands Development Board, why did they not do that? Or did the Government not dare to do it? Do they want to retain control in Whitehall? Do they think that by retaining control themselves while appearing to give it away to the Assembly they will have more influence and control over the Labour Party's fortunes in Scotland?
We should not forget what is really at the bottom of the Bill. It is not designed to help the people of Scotland or to improve the Government there. It is au fond designed to help the Labour Party in Scotland. In this clause the Government are entering a dangerous area of direct concern to the families of Scotland who at the moment enjoy an undue proportion of assistance from the United Kingdom economy. We want to be satisfied that the Government have thought all these matters through. We fear that they have not done so, because the possible division of the control of the United Kingdom economy would be a grievous blow to Scotland and would in no sense be in the interests of anybody in Scotland.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I hope that under the clause we shall have the guidelines set out. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member is referring to me.

Mr. Sproat: We want to hear the Minister. The hon. Member has not even been here.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Observations from a sedentary position are deprecated.

Dr. Miller: I would not be happy if the SDA were constricted and restricted by any Government directives. I have cause to be grateful and thankful to the SDA in my constituency. In the Blantyre part of the constituency, the SDA is going ahead with developments which will be of great benefit to an area of high unemployment. It may interest the SNP to know that the area in my constituency with the highest unemployment is the area which gave that party a trouncing in the May elections. Therefore, SNP

Members should note that the slogans and words which the SNP uses to try to con and gull the people, to show that everything in the garden will be rosy if only the SNP is returned to power, fall on deaf ears among the working people of Scotland.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: We shall see.

Dr. Miller: Yes, we shall see. I am not complacent about unemployment in Scotland. It is a disaster. Unemployment is high and is growing in every industrialised country in the world. Scotland and England are not exceptions.
What would happen to employment if the SNP achieved power in Scotland? In the new town of East Kilbride, 75 per cent. of the jobs are supplied by United Kingdom or multinational firms. A large proportion of them would disappear if that party came to power.

Mr. Henderson: Name them.

Dr. Miller: Members of the SNP know what I am talking about.

Mr. Henderson: Name them.

Dr. Miller: I know what I am talking about.

Mr. Henderson: Name them.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Member, as I reminded another hon. Member a few minutes ago, that observations from a sedentary position are deprecated.

Mr. Henderson: I spoke only because the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) refused to give way and answer a reasonable question.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Giving way is entirely a matter for the hon. Member who is speaking.

Dr. Miller: I want the Bill to go through. I firmly believe in the good that the Bill will do. I want this clause, with its stress on the Scottish Development Agency continuing its work to benefit areas in need and to bring down unemployment. I believe that that is what the SDA will do.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) who moved the amendment, dealt with the fairly narrow issue of "directions" as opposed to


"guidelines". Since then the debate has ranged widely over the whole clause. I shall seek to answer questions about both the narrow and the wide issues.
I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) raised the question of what happens if the Scottish Assembly does not follow the directions of the Secretary of State. As I told the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), the remedy for the United Kingdom Government is the use of Clause 37 of the Bill. But the Conservative Party voted against that clause. They also voted against Clauses 36 and 38. A synthetic fuss was made about the Division on a point of order.
The Conservative Party cannot escape its responsibility. Its Members voted against very important clauses which preserve the legitimate rights of the United Kingdom Government.

Mr. Pym: We did not have time to debate those clauses.

Mr. Smith: We did not reach the clauses because of the time that was taken discussing other clauses. It does not escape my notice that it might suit some hon. Members not to discuss clauses so that they can draw attention to that elsewhere. The Conservatives voted with the SNP against the interests of the United Kingdom. Now, on the very amendment on which they are asking the questions about how we secure the interests of the United Kingdom, I have to refer them back to the clauses they voted against. I do not know whether their behaviour is good politics, but it does not make sense to me.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Crawford: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that the Tories had reasons why they voted against Clauses 36, 37 and 38, but when I asked him why, he could not answer.

Mr. Smith: They will have an opportunity to explain throughout this Committee stage. I shall ask them often to explain.
But now I must return to the specific question as to why statutory guidelines are more appropriate than directions given by the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) has already put

the reasons extremely well in his lucid speech. What we require is to formulate a code of practice designed to protect the interests of the other parts of the United Kingdom, not a power to decree a series of tightly-drafted specific requirements related to individual decisions, which would be the result of a series of directions.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) reminded us, there are guidelines in practice at the moment. We believe that for the Secretary of State to issue directions to a Scottish Secretary would involve a detailed control over the latter's performance of his functions, and that would not be in tune with the general policy of the Bill. We have guidelines already. We have guidelines in operation in relation to the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire asked me, quite reasonably, what would be the content of the guidelines. Those that the Secretary of State will issue will follow closely the guidelines under which the SDA operates now. It is not a specially complicated or difficult matter.
I accept that there is a common United Kingdom Government involvement at the moment, and that there is to be a transfer of considerable responsibility for the Agency to the Scottish Executive, but these guidelines work satisfactorily and are much preferable to specific directions by the Secretary of State on a whole series of individual matters.
I was intrigued by the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who praised the operations of the SDA and seemed to me perhaps to be stumbling along the road to Socialism a little more than he intended by advocating increased powers for the Scottish Economic Planning Department. We have decentralised a number of responsibilities to that Department, but it will not be devolved. We are not in the business of devolving regional and industrial policy. We believe that that policy is best handled on a United Kingdom basis by the United Kingdom Government and the United Kingdom Parliament.
I was asked why we had decided to devolve the SDA wholly. We did so after a very great deal of consideration. Indeed,


the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire gave the answer himself by saying that it is a uniquely Scottish body. It operates wholly within Scotland. In the November 1975 White Paper, we proposed to devolve the environmental responsibilities of the SDA but not its industrial responsibilities, but it seemed to us on reflection to make more sense to give the Assembly and the Executive control over the Agency as a whole. But they do not have legislative responsibility for it.
Why do we have the concept of guidelines at all? It is important to observe fairness and equity among the regional industrial policies of the United Kingdom. It would not be fair to allow the SDA to give soft loans or extra incentives to firms in Scotland which were not available in the North-East of England, for example. This is consistent with our view that devolution will strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom. I believe that profoundly—and I emphasise it to Opposition Members who keep fighting the Bill at every stage because they believe that it will harm the unity of the United Kingdom. However, I think that this indication—[Interruption] If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South will stop voting against clauses which preserve the interests of the United Kingdom, I shall then take lectures from him on this subject.
However, it is necessary in our view to have regional and industrial policy dealt with on a United Kingdom basis.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Given that I do not entirely disagree with what the Minister says, may I ask him to explain why the Highlands and Islands Development Board, operating within the budget allowed to it, should not be permitted to vary the kind of incentives that it uses in that area? I should have thought that it could hardly be argued that this would topple the whole United Kingdom economy.

Mr. Smith: It might not topple the whole United Kingdom economy. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that the Highlands and Islands Development Board operates in one defined area of Scotland, not the whole of Scotland. It covers the area specified by the former crofting counties, although the area has been

changed from time to time. There is a point that even within Scotland, though, if one allows one particular agency to offer a better set of incentives than those offered by another, some difficulties would arise. That would be a problem, perhaps, between the central belt and the Highlands, rather than, say, between a Scottish company and an English company, concerning the SDA's operations.
We thought very carefully about these matters but we came to the conclusion that it was wiser to have a common set of rules for both the HIDB and the SDA. The hon. Gentleman has made the point forcefully to me on a number of occasions that he thought that the case concerning the HIDB was much less convincing than it was for the SDA.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked about new towns and their relationship with the Treasury, as he saw it. There will be no direct relationship with the Treasury or the Government as far as this is concerned. It will be solely with the Scottish Administration. There are guidelines on the disposal of industrial land, as my hon. Friend will see from the terms of the clause, to ensure that, when they dispose of land or industrial buildings, this will be on the same terms as in comparable areas elsewhere. That is really what that part of the clause is about.
The hon. Member for Dumfries asked me about control of finance on the operations of the SDA. At least, that was what I understood him to be asking me about. He asked whether it would be done over the life of a Parliament or from month to month or year to year. There will be no separate United Kingdom control over the finance of the SDA, either for a Parliament as a whole or for shorter periods. All the funds made available for devolved purposes will be part of the annual block fund, and it will be for the devolved Administration to decide how much of their resources goes to the SDA. They will have an opportunity to decide how much of their resources will be allocated to the SDA.
The importance of the guidelines is that they will operate so that the SDA will not be able to offer a more attractive set of incentives, as it were, to industry in. Scotland than the incentives offered in England in the North-East or the North-West.


I think that that is a very sensible thing to decide.
I think that we are absolutely right in not devolving regional or industrial development policy, but when we have a body such as the SDA, which has an important role, the Assembly will have a role so far as its environmental functions are concerned, in a legislative sense. Where it is operating entirely within Scotland, staffed by Scottish people and with a very good board drawn from very representative sections of Scottish life, it seems to us to make sense that the day-to-day administration and control of that body should be given to the Assembly and the Scottish Administration.
I found it curious that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was saying that he thought there was a case for greater industrial devolution.

Mr. Pym: What I said was that I thought that the half-way house position chosen by the Government in the clause was not satisfactory and that there was a case for saying that we should go further and devolve some real powers, if that was what the Government wanted to do, or not devolve any at all.

Mr. Smith: It is difficult to understand the right hon. Gentleman. On the one hand he says that he thinks that there is a case for greater industrial devolution, and on the other hand he says that there is a case for no industrial devolution. Of which one of those attractive possibilities is he in favour?

Mr. Pym: At this hour the Minister must be very tired. He, too, has been listening to the whole debate. I made it perfectly clear that I thought that these matters ought not to be devolved.

Mr. Smith: In that case, it seems odd that the right hon. Gentleman should be saying anything about the case for more industrial devolution. In his famous speech at St. Andrews he proposed devolution of neither a legislative nor an executive kind. One wonders what other form of devolution there is. But that is the devolution to which the Conservative Party is committed in principle. There was no mention of any economic devolution there. The Conservative proposals are so half-hearted and feeble that they do not involve devolution at all.
For once I commend the persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. A great deal of it is directed to me, but some of it is directed at the Opposition Front Bench, and one day he may receive an answer. He is entitled to keep pressing, because he has received nothing remotely like an answer yet.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) made an interesting speech, but he is operating on a different political principle from that of the Government. As far as I can see, he has accepted the argument for a separate State. In that sense he is, in effect, a nationalist. I know that he has differences of opinion with the SNP, but he does not seem to have many on that point. Perhaps I have got him wrong.

Mr. Sillars: My hon. Friend is aware, because we have talked about this matter elsewhere, that I am speaking within the context of the EEC, because I do not believe that any part of the United Kingdom is coming out of the Community. This is not a semantic difference between me and the SNP.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend would want to keep for Scotland the same status as the Republic of Ireland, which is an independent State. If we changed Scotland's constitution to one like that of the Republic of Ireland, we should be creating an independent State. People who argue for an independent State will not wish there to be controls. I understand that the SNP, because it is nationalist, will oppose some of these provisions. I am not a nationalist, and the Government are not putting forward nationalist proposals.
We are seeking to give more autonomy, more control over Scottish affairs, to a Scottish Assembly directly elected by the Scottish people but within the firm framework of the continuing unity of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend does not favour that commitment to continuing political and economic unity, which is very much at the heart of our proposals. Therefore, we part company on that matter. I suppose that Opposition Members are sincere in wanting to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom, but with their total lack of sensitivity to the feelings of people in Scotland who want more control over aspects


of their own affairs which can legitimately be dealt with in Scotland they are failing to serve the cause of unity.
When we deal with such matters as the SDA we must put into the Bill provisions that are carefully thought out. Hon. Members have noticed the complicated provisions. They hang together. We have here an important measure of devolution, but at the same time we have had close regard to the interests of other parts of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the North of England and other parts would legitimately ask searching questions if we did not have these protections in the Bill for the interests of all other parts of the United Kingdom.
I do not know what the Conservatives propose to do if there is a vote on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill", because it contains important protections for the unity of the United Kingdom. I hope that we shall not see a repeat of their irresponsibility on Clauses 36, 37 and 38. If they decide to vote against Clause 39. their claim to represent the interests of the United Kingdom will be in total tatters.
I shall watch with very great interest what happens on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill". The amendment is probably more of a probing nature than of any other kind, and I shall understand if there is not a vote on

Division No. 43]
AYES
[11.00 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Anderson, Donald
Cryer, Bob
Grant, John (Islington C)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dalyell, Tam
Hatton, Frank


Atkinson, Norman
Davidson, Arthur
Hooson, Emlyn


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Bates, Alf
Deakins, Eric
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Beith, A. J.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Huckfield, Les


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boardman, H.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hunter, Adam


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunn, James A.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
John, Brynmor


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Buchan, Norman
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Flannery, Martin
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Campbell, Ian
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Judd, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Ford, Ben
Kaufman, Gerald


Cartwright, John
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Kerr, Russell


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lambie, David


Cohen, Stanley
George, Bruce
Lemond, James


Coleman, Donald
Gilbert, Dr John
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ginsburg, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Golding, John
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Gould, Bryan
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Crawshaw, Richard
Gourlay, Harry
Luard, Evan


Cronin, John
Graham, Ted
Lyon, Alexander (York)

that. If, however, there is a vote on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill" we shall see whether the Conservative Party is more interested in trying to get cheap victories over the Government in the House of Commons than in protecting the interests of the United Kingdom.

Today must have been one of the most foolish in the history of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons—and that is saying something—because it decided, I do not know whether in pique or otherwise, to vote against some important clauses. Conservative Members have an opportunity on Clause 39 to save a little of their self-respect by not voting against it. I fear myself that they might succumb to the temptation simply to vote against anything—

It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [22nd November], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 168, Noes 163.

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Penhaligon, Davis
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McCartney, Hugh
Radice, Giles
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Maclennan, Robert
Richardson, Miss Jo
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James


Madden, Max
Robinson, Geoffrey
Torney, Tom


Magee, Bryan
Roderick, Caerwyn
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Marks, Kenneth
Roper, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Michael


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Watkins, David


Mendelson, John
Rowlands, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Mikardo, Ian
Sandelson, Neville
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian
White, James (Pollok)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Sever, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Mitchell, Austin
Silverman, Julius
Whitlock, William


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Noble, Mike
Snape, Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Oakes, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel
Woof, Robert


Ogden, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stallard, A. W.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Palmer, Arthur
Steel, Rt Hon David



Pardoe, John
Stott, Roger
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Park, George
Strang, Gavin
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Pavitt, Laurie
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Mr. James Hamilton.


Pendry, Tom






NOES


Arnold, Tom
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morgan, Geraint


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mudd, David


Banks, Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Ba[...])
Nelson, Anthony


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Neubert, Michael


Benyon, W.
Griffiths, Eldon
Nott, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grist, Ian
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Grylls, Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hannam, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Braine, Sir Bernard
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brittan, Leon
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hawkins, Paul
Raison, Timothy


Brooke, Peter
Henderson, Douglas
Reid, George


Brotherton, Michael
Hodgson, Robin
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Rhodes James, R.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Buck, Anthony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Budgen, Nick
James, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Canavan, Dennis
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kershaw, Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Sillars, James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Silvester, Fred


Cockroft, John
Kilson, Sir Timothy
Sims, Roger


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Knox, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Cope, John
Lawson, Nigel
Skeet, T. H. H.


Costain, A. P.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Crawford, Douglas
Luce, Richard
Speed, Keith


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
McCrindle, Robert
Spence, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Drayson, Burnaby
MacGregor, John
Sproat, Iain


Dunlop, John
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Stainton, Keith


Durant, Tony
Mackintosh, John P.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dykes, Hugh
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stokes, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Mather, Carol
Tebbit, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, George


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mayhew, Patrick
Wakeham, John


Farr, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mills, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Moate, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Molyneaux, James
Watt, Hamish


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard







Wells, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Welsh, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas
Sir. George Young and Mr. Jim Lester 


Wiggin, Jerry
Wood, Rt Hon Richard



Wigley, Dafydd
Younger, Hon George

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Division No. 44]
AYES
[11.15 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Gould, Bryan
Palmer, Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Gourlay, Harry
Park, George


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Graham, Ted
Pavitt, Laurie


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Pendry, Tom


Bates, Alf
Grant, John (Islington C)
Penhaligon, David


Beith, A. J.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Radice, Giles


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hatton, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooson, Emlyn
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Huckfield, Les
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roper, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hunter. Adam
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
John, Brynmor
Rowlands, Ted


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sandelson, Neville


Campbell, Ian
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Cant, R. B.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sever, John


Cartwright, John
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Silverman, Julius


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Small, William


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Judd, Frank
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cohen, Stanley
Kaufman, Gerald
Snape, Peter


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Russell
Spearing, Nigel


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lambie, David
Stallard, A. W.


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lamond, James
Steel, Rt Hon David


Crawshaw, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted
Stott, Roger


Cronin, John
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Strang, Gavin


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Cryer, Bob
Luard, Evan
Taylor. Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dalyell, Tam
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Davidson, Arthur
McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Torney, Tom


Deakins, Eric
Mackintosh, John P.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dolg, Peter
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dormand, J. D.
Madden, Max
Ward, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Magee, Bryan
Watkins, David


Dunn, James A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Weetch, Ken


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Marks, Kenneth
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, James (Pollok)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Whitehead, Phillip


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mendelson, John
Whitlock, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Flannery, Martin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, Austin
Woof, Robert


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King



George, Bruce
Noble, Mike
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gilbert, Dr John
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Ginsburg, David
Ogden, Eric
Mr. James Hamilton.


Golding, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley





NOES


Arnold, Tom
Banks, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Benyon, W.
Braine, Sir Bernard


Awdry, Daniel
Berry, Hon Anthony
Brittan, Leon


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Biffen, John
Brooke, Peter

Clause 40

NATIONAL PAY POLICY

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 160. Noes 161.

Brotherton, Michael
Hawkins, Paul
Raison, Timothy


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Henderson, Douglas
Reid, George


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hodgson, Robin
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Holland, Philip
Rhodes James, R.


Buck, Anthony
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Canavan, Dennis
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
James, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkin Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Cockroft, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
King. Evelyn (South Dorset)
Silvester, Fred


Cope, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sims, Roger


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Crawford, Douglas
Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lawson, Nigel
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Drayson, Burnaby
Luce, Richard
Spence, John


Dunlop, John
McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Neil
Sproat, Iain


Dykes, Hugh
MacGregor, John
Stainton, Keith


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stokes, John


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mather, Carol
Tebbit, Norman


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, George


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mayhew, Patrick
Wakeham, John


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Forman, Nigel
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mills, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Miscampbell, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Moate, Roger
Warren. Kenneth


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Molyneaux, James
Watt, Hamish


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Goodhart, Philip
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wells, John


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, Geraint
Welsh, Andrew


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wiggin, Jerry


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wigley, Dafydd


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Nelson, Anthony
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Griffiths, Eldon
Neubert, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Nott, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Grist, Ian
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Grylls, Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey
Younger, Hon George


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian



Hannam, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Sir George Young and Mr. Jim Lester.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 41

MINISTER'S CONSENT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF CERTAIN PERSONS

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

Division No. 45]
AYES
[11.29 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Buchan, Norman
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Anderson, Donald
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Cryer, Bob


Armstrong, Ernest
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Campbell, Ian
Dalyell, Tam


Atkinson, Norman
Cant, R. B.
Davidson, Arthur


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cartwright, John
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Bates, Alf
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Deakins, Eric


Beith, A. J.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cohen, Stanley
Doig, Peter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Coleman, Donald
Dormand, J. D.


Boardman, H.
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Dunn, James A.


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crawshaw, Richard
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cronin, John
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

The Committee divided: Ayes 162, Noes 16.

Ferny hough, Rt Hon E.
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Sandelson, Neville


Flannery, Martin
McCartney, Hugh
Sedgemore, Brian


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Sever, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Silverman, Julius


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maclennan, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Small, William


George, Bruce
Madden, Max
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Gilbert, Dr John
Magee, Bryan
Snape, Peter


Golding, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Spearing, Nigel


Gould, Bryan
Marks, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stallard, A. W.


Graham, Ted
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John
Stott, Roger


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mikardo, Ian
Strang, Gavin


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hatton, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Taylor. Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hooson, Emlyn
Mitchell, Austin
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tinn, James


Huckfield, Les
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Torney, Tom


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Noble, Mike
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Oakes, Gordon
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Ward, Michael


John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur
Watkins, David


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Park, George
Weetch, Ken


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pavitt, Laurie
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Pendry, Tom
White, James (Pollok)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Penhaligon, David
Whitehead, Phillip


Judd, Frank
Radice, Giles
Whitlock, William


Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Kerr, Russell
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lambie, David
Robinson, Geoffrey
Woof, Robert


Lamond, James
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John



Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Luard, Evan
Rowlands, Ted
Mr. James Hamilton.


Lyon, Alexander (York)






NOES


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Welsh, Andrew


Canavan, Dennis
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wigley, Dafydd


Dunlop, John
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)



Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Henderson, Douglas
Watt, Hamish
Mr. George Reid and Mr. Douglas Crawford.


Molyneaux, James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [16th November].

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Before I call the Minister to move the motion, I should indicate that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and other Members.

11.42 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/1955/77, R/1959/77, R/2347/77, R/2348/77 and R/2594/77 on Energy Policy and R/1901/77, R/1956/77 and R/1958/77 on Nuclear Energy.
First, I express a view that will be widely shared in the House—namely, my regret that an important debate should be taking place as late at night as this and that we should be under the pressure of an EEC Energy Council meeting next Tuesday at which some of these issues will be raised, which means that I shall need to know as best as possible the views of the House. I am moved to welcome what my right hon. Friend the Lord President said about looking again at our scrutiny procedures in order to improve them. Meanwhile the "take note" motion is the only practicable course that we can adopt to permit these matters to be discussed.
By way of introduction, I shall draw some contrast between the way in which we are discussing and deciding United Kingdom energy policy with the way it is being determined within the EEC. We have had with general good will—I am not trying to commit anybody—a development of energy policy with the help of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, whose chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), is always present to remind the House of the work done by the Committee, a national energy conference, many public hearings, public documents, an Energy Commission which met for the first time last week, tripartite meetings, legislation and debates.
It has been my intention throughout that all these issues should be discussed openly and by a consultative process. I

recognise that it is a bit slower to do it that way, but the intention has been to share decisions much more widely. I do so as the Minister accountable to the House of Commons. I would not be sorry if the powers-that-be who decide these things were to supplement this development by having a Select Committee solely concerned with energy. That would not be at all a bad idea. I am not sure how that would be done, but if it were the view of the House there would be no hostility to it from the Minister responsible.
By contrast, the development of energy policy within the Community is on a completely different basis—

Mr. Peter Rost: They take decisions.

Mr. Benn: I shall come to that in just a moment. First, the Commission, of the work of which the Minister and Parliament know practically nothing, operates in secret. There is no report by the Commission to the Council of Ministers. Secondly, there is a Coreper, a committee of representatives which is made up of senior Foreign Office officials of the Community countries—Sir Donald Maitland is our representative—and which is not specifically concerned with energy. It meets in private. Thirdly, there are ministerial meetings, held in secret as well. Yet, as tonight's debate proves, the documents we are discussing today are of fundamental importance and could affect a very large number of people in this country.
I draw this comparison because I think that the debate on EEC energy policy, in which I have played some part, has tended to be on the question of "in or out" instead of, or much to the exclusion of, the question of the methods of the EEC and their acceptability in the United Kingdom as a means of making energy policy. The reason why I have alluded to the way in which I have sought to deal with this in the United Kingdom is that I should be wholly opposed to secret methods of making energy policy in the United Kingdom, particularly if that led to decisions which had not been the subject of very wide discussion.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us as to why a number of these documents refer to a communication to the Council of 17th May entitled "The Community in


the International Nuclear Environment"? We understand from the explanatory memorandum put out by the Government that it was never published. Why did the Commission never publish that document?

Mr. Leo Abse: Why, when I have requested that document to be made available, has that never been done? An inquiry was made today in the Library, and it was confirmed that the document is an unpublished working paper which is therefore not available for distribution. Is my right hon. Friend aware that this seminal document which should have been before us has not been available for us to debate?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Benn: I shall make inquiries about this. I must tell the House, however, because this is central to the general argument that I have been conducting internally for two and a half years, that any documents, whether working or not, in Europe or the United Kingdom should not be withheld from publication. That is my position and I have stated it in the Commission. Naturally, I have discussed this with my colleagues in the Government. At the last three Energy Councils—I began it on my first time as President—I have made it clear that I believe that the Energy Council should be held in public. There is nothing secret in what we discuss, and we should meet in public, because for this purpose at any rate it is a sort of legislative body.
If what my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said reflects the view of the House, as it seemed to do from the sounds of assent given to it, I shall be strengthened in my arguments in pressing this at the Council meeting next Tuesday.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Would my right hon. Friend's plea for the open publication of documents apply to documents supplied to his Energy Commission?

Mr. Benn: Of course. Every document that goes to the Energy Commission is published. In addition, the transcripts of the Commission, which are now being typed, will be published. I could challenge hon. Members to find any document on any aspect, other than

commercial contracts, which has not been made available to the House. I know that this is a source of some tittering to those who believe that the Commission is a "chat-in", but it would be wrong to take these decisions until the wide range of institutions have had their opportunity to express their views. Hon. Members would be surprised how many different bodies are concerned with this topic. It is helpful to me as a Minister to know what people think before I take a decision.

Mr. Peter Walker: Does that mean that in the right hon. Gentleman's view the report of the inspector of the Windscale inquiry should be debated and discussed before a decision is taken?

Mr. Benn: There is an amendment about that which Mr. Deputy Speaker said must not be debated, but I should like to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. This is a matter for ray right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The question was raised recently in the House by one of my hon. Friends and I undertook to convey his opinion to the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have done that and I have, therefore, discharged my obligation. It is not a matter for me, and I hope that the House will excuse me from dealing with it. With my good will, responsibility for dealing with these matters has been transferred to another Minister. I believe that the Department of Energy should not have responsibility for these matters. If it did, people would say that it had a vested interest.

Mr. Tom King: Can the Secretary of State confirm a report that his own adviser, Professor Odell, has been refused access by the Department of Energy to certain information about the oil industry?

Mr. Benn: I shall look at that and find out. The question is fresh to me. I invited Professor Odell to advise me on the relationship between the oil companies and foreign companies. I thought that he was well able to do that. Advisers are not privy to confidential, commercial matters, but at the same time they must have access to relevant information. I shall look into that question.
I want to express to the House the view that I have already expressed to the


Energy Council. I believe that the handling of energy policy in the Community requires some important changes if it is to be acceptable to us. I want to tell the House what I believe these changes should be.
First, Ministers should meet in open session. That is a reasonable propositon. Secondly, the Commission should report to Ministers on its activities in addition to putting documents before them. Thirdly, Parliament should examine proposals in detail. I have put that to the Council, and it concerns the scrutiny to which I have referred.
If we have an Energy Commission at home, proposals from the Community should be discussed at home. It is no good my putting proposals to the British Energy Commission if Community proposals are not made available for comment by the Energy Commission at home. This may sound complicated, but anyone who follows energy matters knows what a wide range of interests is involved.
On this basis, one can begin to develop what should be our attitude to Community energy policy. First, let us be clear that we want a successful Community policy for energy. There is no dispute about that. Secondly, as I have made clear in Brussels, Luxembourg and here, in our view it should be based upon the harmonisation of the national plans of the member States. We believe that if we do it that way we shall make more progress than if we did it the other way, which is to make energy policy the spearhead for a federal control of energy in the Community by the Commission, thus becoming the instrument by which the Commission gains control over the resources, the policy or the democratic safeguards of any member State.
That is my general approach. I do not believe that it would be specially controversial in the normal arguments about Community membership. It seems to me a sensible way to make progress. I have made this approach clear, and I hope that I carry the House generally with me in asserting it.
The reason why I have gone into this detail—if we stay as late as this it is worth doing it properly—is that I think that the criteria I have outlined are helpful in assessing how we approach these

documents. If the documents, be they recommendations or regulations, lead to sensible co-operation and harmonisation, the House should welcome them. I certainly do. If, however, they were to represent a takeover of policy, resources or basic national interests, we should look at them very critically.
I turn now to the clutch of documents before us, and first I deal with the nuclear energy documents. These proposals—they probably will not come up for decision next Tuesday—are all fundamentally important to the handling of nuclear policy in the United Kingdom itself. It can hardly be denied after our debate last Friday that in nuclear matters one is never dealing solely with national concerns, because all nuclear matters are by definition international.
In the debate, I went through the list of organisations concerned, including the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation Programme, the International Atomic Energy Authority and Euratom. They are concerned with proliferation, safety standards and technical co-operation.
Nothing that I am about to say should be read as suggesting that in nuclear policy any one country could cut itself off and say "We are an island unto our-serves". But I must emphasise, as I shall on Tuesday, that decisions on reactor types, on whether we are to adopt the AGR or the PWR type, on the fast breeder, on reprocessing or on waste disposal must be retained within a régime of decision-making that leaves them accountable to the House of Commons and the electorate in this country.
In saying that, I am defending not only my own ministerial interests but the Department of the Environment as well. I know that there is some comment abroad about why we have been able to have these nuclear debates without riot police being called out. It is not just a matter of open discussion; it is because people know that in the end any decision will be taken by Ministers accountable to Parliament and by Members of Parliament accountable to their constituents. It is also because the people in this country trust the Department of the Environment to appoint an inspector to look at reprocessing and to do it in a fair and balanced


way, and they know that when the Minister reaches a decision it will be one for which he and the Cabinet as a whole are responsible. The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) knows all this. He has been in charge both of energy matters and of the environment; he has worn two hats.

Mr. Tom King: The right hon. Gentleman is getting carried away. Who actually takes the decisions in Germany and France? Perhaps this is a rather dialectic point, but in the end Ministers take these decisions in those countries.

Mr. Benn: I am not commenting on how other countries do it. I am saying that it would be an entirely different situation if the decision as to whether we went ahead with Windscale were taken by the Commission. That is the point I am making. I think that our method of public discussion is probably a better way of doing it. I am saying that what we are really safeguarding is not so much, or alone, the discussion but the fact that in the end someone stands up and says "I had the inquiry. I considered it. I decided it. I am responsible for it. Get rid of me if you wish." If we were to say to the House—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will disagree with me—"Whatever the inspector said, the Commission has decided whether Windscale is to go ahead and that we are to have a fast breeder reactor", or whatever might be decided, we would reopen public anxiety not because it is the Commission but because there is not a fabric or a line of responsibility from the Commission to the electorate for the purpose of deciding.
I attach very great importance to this matter. Anyone who reads the documents on nuclear policy that are before us will find on one interpretation what they might be suggesting, for example, on waste disposal. In waste disposal techniques, let us have a full exchange of information. Let us upgrade to the best. But one could not have a situation in which it was decided outside this country where the waste of this country and other countries was to be put in this country, unless it was decided by British Ministers.
I hope that these constitutional digressions are not thought to be irrelevant, because, frankly, I could not accept a

transfer of responsibility for a decision of this magnitude from the House of Commons to anyone else whatsoever. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool and I have differed on the European question, but I do not believe that the question I am now raising reopens old wounds of that kind. It is not intended to do so. It is intended to try to unite a body of people in the House behind a British Minister who has to argue these arguments in a forum which is not as familiar as we are with the way in which these matters are settled.
Therefore, when I go to the meeting in Brussels on Tuesday, I intend to say there much of what I have said tonight, and I hope that the House will not think me wrong to do so. I reassure the House that decisions will not be taken on these matters on Tuesday. The European Assembly has to be consulted, and these matters will come up later. However, I want there to be no misunderstanding about them. Indeed, when the Commission had hearings recently on nuclear power, organised by Commissioner Brunner, I invited him to come and see me to discuss it. I very much welcomed the seminars that were being held, but I underline the view that a seminar organised by the Commission could not be a substitute for ministerial control by any member State on matters of this magnitude.
By contrast, lest anyone thinks that I am being negative, one can have successful co-operation on nuclear matters. I cite, for example, the JET project, which took a very long time to be agreed. Here we have an important international technical project which is too expensive for any member State to undertake. We very strongly supported JET from the beginning. We joined in the discussions about where it should be sited. In my opinion, expensive forward-looking research and development of that kind is absolutely proper for the Community, and it does not raise any of the questions that I have raised in the context of nuclear decisions.
I see the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) in his place. I recall that when, on an earlier occasion, he spoke from the Opposition Front Bench he raised some of the questions with which I have dealt tonight. He might not have


thought that I was listening, but I was. I have tried to reflect some of the things that he said about the passage of decision-making on nuclear policy from this Chamber to the Council or the Commission.

Mr. Rost: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that he is not trying to confuse the House on two separate issues: the decision-taking—most of us would agree that individual nations should retain this power—and collaborative research and development projects? Surely, most of the documents deal with recommendations that we should get together on research and development on nuclear waste problems and the fast breeder reactor as well as on JET.

Mr. Benn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman would acquit me of ever being reluctant to talk to anybody about energy problems. I must have spoken to more people about them than anyone else has done, because I believe that discussion of them is very valuable. I suggested that the Council of Ministers' discussion about nuclear policy should be open, but as the Ministers would not have it we had the seminar hearings outside.
I find the discussions in the Council of Ministers very interesting. I am not trying to suggest that certain subjects should be abstracted from them. I am strongly in favour of international discussions and collaboration about a whole range of matters, including JET, fluidised-bed burning, which is an International Energy Agency operation, and some of the subjects we shall discuss tonight. But I wanted to make clear beyond peradventure, as they say, that I could not accept that one should slip from a discussion of these matters to decision-making about the fast breeder.
The House knows our view on the fast breeder. We have not yet made up our minds. We have not closed the option of building it. We have said that if we decide to build it we shall have another inquiry like the one that took place at Windscale. Subject to the inquiry's conclusion, international collaboration on the fast breeder would be right. There are strong arguments for it, but the desirability of international collaboration cannot of itself be a reason for bypassing the decision that must be taken here. I do not think that anyone will disagree.
I come to the other clutch of issues that are included on the Order Paper. I want to go through them one by one. Document R/1955/77 concerns the grant of a measure of support for Community projects in the hydrocarbons sector—not exploring but supporting technology in that sector. It is a very good scheme. The only trouble is that I had to go ahead with it before this debate because the time ran out. This exposes a difficulty of our scrutiny procedure. If I had not agreed before the debate, we should have missed the next year's work, and we have been doing very well out of it. We have about 31 per cent. of the projects. Nobody would deny that I was right to do what I did, but I felt uneasy and I wrote to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee explaining my dilemma.
The next document is No. R/1959/77, on the achievement of Community energy policy objectives for 1985. Here we run into serious difficulties. First, the Commission has suggested that the Community should commit itself to a rapid and expanding nuclear commitment. I must qualify that by repeating that if we go ahead with the document, in whatever form, it cannot of itself be held to commit us to specific nuclear decisions which we must take ourselves. I shall say that next week.
Secondly, there is a note about the amount of oil that the Community should produce by 1985. As most of the oil is United Kingdom oil, if I were to agree to that without qualification it could be argued that the Commission had taken over control of the rate of depletion of our oil. I could not possibly accept that. because had I agreed that it would be a good thing to have EEC oil available in large quantities the Commission could later say to me "By the way, Mr. Benn, that means that your depletion of the North Sea must be sufficient to meet our objectives", because that would involve a takeover of our depletion policy. In the most constructive and helpful way, I shall point that out to my ministerial colleagues.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Treaty of Rome explicity excludes any say in the natural resources of a country from consideration by Brussels?

Mr. Benn: This is the uncertain area in which we operate. I know that and I accept it, but if as a Minister I assent to a level of Community production of oil and in fact it is "our oil"—to adopt a phrase from another debate which has Just concluded—and then they say "Mr. Benn, we have not met the domestic or Community requirement for production. Therefore, you will have to produce more from the North Sea.", the particular provision to which my hon. Friend referred might be eroded. I do not think it would be right for me to say that depletion policy had slipped out of our control by what is called a side wind.
We do not really agree with what the Commission suggests about the level of coal imports. We believe in moving to coal burning for all sorts of reasons—everyone accepts it worldwide—but the suggestion is that coal imports will play a very large part, and our interest is that, as 33 per cent. of all coal investment in the Community is ours, we really ought to meet demand by indigenous coal. The policy objectives which we have worked on at United Kingdom level ire guidelines. They are non-binding but they are very valuable.
The next document refers to the energy position in the Community and in the world. It is very helpful and is a survey of great value. I suggested that we should do it. I think that the House will find no difficulty in hoping that the Community will look at this at its Council meetings, and similarly in regard to energy supplies.
The last of the documents is on hydrocarbon exploration, and this is very important. The Commission is suggesting that the European Economic Community should drill for oil. I do not really have to say more than that to indicate that it is a quite an important issue. It was put up some years ago, before I was the Minister, and I do not think it had a very warm welcome, but at any rate work went on on that subject. What is now proposed—it probably will not be decided next Tuesday—is that in certain circumstances this work should be undertaken.
The United Kingdom view can be summarised very simply. It is, first, that we do not think it is very sensible to spend money on exploring where the oil is less likely to be. We feel that it is better to use the existing investment to

search for oil where it is more likely to be, but that in any case, if this proposal were to be undertaken, it would have to be with the consent of the country whose territorial waters covered where the drilling took place. Put simply, it would not be sensible to wake up one day and find that there was Community drilling going on in the North Sea, as it were, without our understanding. I do not believe that that will be a difficult argument to put across, and I would intend to put it across.
I have now made a comment on each of the documents before the House, and I shall seek, if there is time, to deal with points that may be raised in the debate. I hope, however, that no Member who is unable to get called, or who wants to go on longer than he is able to do, will fail to put points to me, to which I would hope to give a proper reply. As I said at the beginning, I regard this as a very important debate indeed.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. Tom King: I do not know what the House will make of the performance it has just heard, but I think we all enjoyed it, if nothing else. I start in the most conciliatory way by accepting what the Secretary of State said about the totally unsatisfactory nature of the debate. We are dealing now with some eight EEC documents covering three entirely different subjects. We started at 11.42 p.m.—a time which may take on some significance later, as we are limited to two hours.
Certainly I join the Secretary of State in criticising this method of dealing with the documents. I do not, however, join him in any sympathy, because I should have thought he had a rôle to play in trying to change the method. As a member of the Cabinet, presumably he has some influence on the Leader of the House. But to stand before hon. Members in a white sheet and simply say "Aren't we all in a mess?" is not entirely satisfactory. He is a member of the Government, and I should have thought that he could have made some representation on the question.
If I may say so, I do not think that this is the best time at which to deal with these matters, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I think it affects us all


adversely to be dealing with such matters at this time of night.
Frankly, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman talked absolute nonsense at one stage in his speech when he said that the real reason why we have not had the sort of demonstration which has taken place at Brockdorf and Creys Malville was that in Britain the decisions were taken by Ministers. With respect, I do not think that was a logical conclusion, because decisions are taken by Ministers in France and Germany. The Secretary of State appeared to indicate that these were somehow Community nuclear decisions, which, of course, they were not.

Mr. Benn: indicated dissent.

Mr. King: If that was not what the right hon. Gentleman meant, I entirely accept that. It was obviously a slip of the tongue.
We are not the first department, if I may put it that way, which has been faced with the discussion of documents at this hour. I do not know what will be done to tackle that problem. I do not know whether the reason is traditional inertia on the part of the House for improving its methods of dealing with these arangements or whether it is inertia coupled with antagonism in certain quarters to ensure that arrangements for handling European business are not improved, but it is clear that the present proceeding upon which we are engaged is a farce in terms of these very important documents on energy policy.
The documents cover three quite unrelated energy issues. That is certainly an unsatisfactory way to proceed. The first document seems to be a complete waste of time. It is an estimate of what energy consumption in the Community will be in the first half of 1976. It is an estimate of what energy consumption in the Community will be in the second half of 1976. It is a forecast of what energy consumption will be in the Community in the first half of 1977. It will not get us very much further by coming forward and discussing the matter now, in December 1977.
The next two papers are also concerned with energy forecasts. Here I entirely accept what the Secretary of State said about the implications in these documents.

It is quite clear that the second document, which deals with oil production by 1985—if we regard ourselves as at present overwhelmingly the most likely producer of that oil—is very much setting a target for British production of North Sea oil.
I quite understand that that has considerable implications for United Kingdom depletion policy, and I understand why that matter will have to be looked at very carefully indeed. At the same time, it is necessary to recognise that, as in so many European situations, there are possibilities of compromise and agreement.
There are within these documents some very significant comments about coal. There is the very significant comment about the increasing difficulty of marketing Community production of coal within the Community and the fact that within the period referred to imports increased by about 17 per cent. When one looks at the development of energy supplies in the Community there can be no doubt that the development of the coal market and its implications are of considerable significance to this country.
Obviously, there will be difficulty for the Secretary of State in the dicussions on these matters. We know about the problem of low-cost COMECON coal, for example, and the difficulties of getting satisfactory markets for United Kingdom production. Some measure of give and take may be necessary in that area. The Secretary of State is constantly reminding us that the United Kingdom is an energy producer within the Community and of the fact that the Community could provide a valuable market for us, particularly with regard to coal, which is, perhaps, our hardest commodity to move in that respect.
I turn briefly to the two further measures on hydrocarbon support. If one were cynical, one would say that the Government are in favour of the first measure because we get 31 per cent. of the money and they are not in favour of the second because we get nothing out of it. That may be unkind, and I do not want to make that suggestion even at this late hour.
However, I felt that the Secretary of State was somewhat unduly sinister in his observation that this was the first suggestion that the Community might drill


for oil. I do not know whether the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary is to reply to the debate, but whoever replies may like to clarify this point.
I understand that this is merely assistance similar to the first scheme but in respect of a rather different type of project. It is a similar form of commercial assistance for projects which are considered promising but which are in a high-risk area where it is thought that some financial stimulus from the Community could provide an added incentive to their promotion. I understand that the development or exploration will be done as it is done in the Community by oil companies at the moment, and that the loans received will have to be repaid to the Community. I do not see this as a sinister Community takeover and a sudden new nationalised or communautaire oil development of the kind implied by the Secretary of State.
There are some interesting aspects about the schemes, and I must confess that I have my doubts about both of them. Looking at the document numbered 1955, which includes this vast range of projects, there are some extremely interesting developments in such matters as seabed completions. Some very interesting development work is being done. It occurs to me to wonder whether these are schemes which need funding in the first place or whether they would not stand on their own feet. They raise the same question that the Government's accelerated project schemes raise in this country. The question is always whether they would go ahead anyway and whether they really need additional funding of this kind. One is bound to ask whether this is funding for the sake of funding or whether it really contributes to Europeon developments of this kind which would not otherwise go ahead.
Having said that, we draw encouragement from and pay tribute to the number of British developments that there are in this scheme of very high technology. It is most encouraging to see them. The new ideas which are clearly spurred on by developments in the North Sea are creating new techniques in the oil industry which could have application worldwide, we hope, and they are most encouraging.
I understand that the principle of this has been approved and that what the House is being asked to do is to enable the Minister to draw on the views of the House about whether each of these projects which have been approved are the detailed list which should go ahead. I am not sure whether I have understood this procedure correctly, but I understand that the principle of the assistance was agreed some months ago by Ministers, that the Commission has now produced its proposals as regards the detailed schemes which should be recommended for assistance, and that the House is being asked to decide which of the schemes should be approved.
There are also some interesting claims. I was interested to see that the Commission felt that the deep drilling of the Western Mediterranean could be as promising an area as the Arabian plateau. If that is true, it is surprising that the oil companies need any financial inducement to get in there fast and start drilling. But that is one of the claims in the document.

Mr. Benn: I do not want to be difficult, but I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a basic question. At home, in relations between the Government and industry, his party is now increasingly taking the view that the Government should absent themselves from industrial interference, investment and funding. I take a different view. When I go to Brussels. however, I find that the interventionism is coming from the Commission.
I should genuinely like to know whether the same criterion of non-interference with industry, which the hon. Gentleman upholds at home, should also be maintained in Brussels. It is a legitimate question to ask. Does the hon. Gentleman say that I should not do it at home but that if I do not agree to it in Brussels I am being non-European? That is a genuine question, and the hon. Gentleman has never given any clear answer.

Mr. King: I like the idea that I have never given a clear answer. The Secretary of State has only just asked the question. I shall give him a clear answer. I see no case for wasting money in Brussels any more than in Britain. The Secretary of State has sought to make a neat debating point, but he should think about the logic of the matter.
This scheme is very similar to our accelerated investment scheme, and my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself have asked on each occasion whether the expenditure really meets the criteria. We have accepted that in certain specific cases there may be grounds for intervention. But in some cases the Government give the impression that they are spraying money around like water in the belief that this will solve the problem. We feel—and I am sure that the taxpayers feel—that this is no more justified in Brussels than it is in London.
There are a number of projects here, and I hope that the Secretary of State will approach Brussels in the manner of a governor of one of the States of the United States of America who was said to remain in office for so long because he spent public money as if it were his own—in other words, he did not spend much at all. We would on occasion welcome that philosophy from this Government. I hope that the Secretary of State will carry that thought to Brussels.
I turn to the nuclear situation. The proposals here obviously touch on a very important issue of great concern in this country. I comment briefly on the lapse of logic by the Secretary of State. We have a precious position at present which, for various reasons that none of us can understand perfectly, means that we are blissfully free of the sort of public demonstrations and riots that were seen in Brockdorf and Creys Malville. Even the normally temperate Swiss have suffered.
I think that the papers divide themselves on the reprocessing side, where BNFL is already involved and has a joint European company. It is vital that we should stay involved and closely in touch. This is an acceptable situation.

Mr. Abse: Is the hon. Member really suggesting that we should go into a committee which has the terms of reference within that document relating to reprocessing? Does he accept that a committee with these terms of reference is the sort of committee that should be set up? This sounds remarkably like giving a blank cheque.

Mr. King: I hope that the hon. Member and I are talking about the same document. I think that his concern lies mainly with the third document. I share

the Government's view, expressed by the Secretary of State, that it would be sensible for the committee to be set up. I do not see the terms of reference as being as sinister as the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) sees them. However, I shall look at them again, and if I have missed something perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) will cover my position before the end of the debate.
On radioactive waste, I think that the idea of identification of sites when we have not yet agreed on the method of disposal, or even if there is a satisfactory method of on-land disposal, is premature. One of the prime recommendations of the Flowers Report is the need for getting on with further research into the question of long-term waste disposal. What are the Government doing about this matter? It is the essential prerequisite of any further development in this field. Furthermore, it is inevitable that countries will have to be responsible for their own wastes, and this will mean some limitation on the Community in this respect.
I wish to deal with the third aspect of the papers that are before us on the subject of the fast breeder. I accept that there is a difficulty in proposing Community views on the fast breeder. It is tragic that in the past we have failed to achieve a greater measure of co-operation in fast breeder development. We now face a "Yes or No" situation in an extremely expensive development. On Friday, the Secretary of State for Energy floated a figure of £2,000 million. I do not accept that figure, but if we finally decide to embark on the procedure discussed on Friday it will make a good deal more sense if it can be funded jointly.
I feel that the fast breeder falls into the same category as JET. The right hon. Gentleman said he accepted that the high technology projects and the related costs were a matter for Community co-operation. From that point of view, the fast breeder must fit into that category. Unfortunately, we seem to have missed out so far in this respect. On Friday we discussed the situation that would occur following Mr. Justice Parker's decision and the eventual governmental decision following a public inquiry. It was made clear that there is a case for a fast breeder demonstration


to maintain the option, and it was felt that this should be recognised as an insurance premium against the chance that certain other options let one down, and did not carry with it any commitment to an ongoing programme. That is very much in line with the Flowers recommendations.
Against that fairly tightly considered position, one must consider the difficulty in imposing a Community view at this stage. Although I hope that the Secretary of State will co-operate with the Community and discuss these problems—and all Community countries face the same problems—we must recognise the personal and national problems that flow from fast breeder development.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has argued the points about the fast breeder with great lucidity and reasonableness, but does he believe that if we were to spend £2,000 million on developing one demonstration of the fast breeder reactor it would not generate intolerable pressures for the nuclear industry to go ahead with a further programme to justify the investment in the single demonstration plant?

Mr. King: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman left the debate on Friday and was unable to hear my comments. I know all the arguments made on that point, but I do not accept the figure of £2,000 million which has been bandied around. I do not think that the Secretary of State would stake his life on that figure. For this reason among others, I believe that we need a public inquiry to clarify some of the issues.
The cost to be considered is not total cost. It involves the cost as against that of a conventional station producing that amount of electricity. I would not regard that part as development cost. It is possible that the eventual figure could amount to one-quarter of the figure quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. I accept the existence of a commercial and political lobby, in the Eisenhower phrase, but I believe that to abandon that option on the grounds that one could not resist the pressure thereafter, would be a policy of despair. I do not accept it.
I have tried to review the documents and I apologise for the bitty nature of my speech, but this inevitably flowed from the bitty nature of the documents. I do not know how the Secretary of State will succeed in the campaign, to which he has publicly committed himself, to improve the method of scrutinising EEC documents and ensuring that they can be considered by the House at a better time.
I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) about the document which was not published, because it is quoted on virtually every one of the explanatory memoranda and immediately beneath in each case is the signature "Tony Benn". It is surprising that with the right hon. Friend's interest in open government he has not questioned why the document referred to above his signature has never been published for the House to read. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify this.

Mr. Benn: It is not my document.

Mr. King: But it is the right hon. Gentleman's signature that is appended on every document, while the preceding paragraphs refer to the document which has not been laid. Since this was not a matter for the Secretary of State's Department, it would have been better if, before signing, the right hon. Gentleman had asked why the document had not been laid before the House.

Mr. Abse: Would it not be fair to point out that it was precisely because the Secretary of State drew our attention to the document and the fact that it was unpublished that we became aware of the difficulties? I do not know why the Opposition are making such a silly point in a serious debate.

Mr. King: I just felt that I should mention it. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is trying to support the Secretary of State, but I have here the documents that we have with the right hon. Gentleman's signature, referring to the unpublished document. My right hon. and hon. Friends were surprised at that and also that when questions were asked the right hon. Gentleman said that he had no idea why the document had not been published. Of course, it is only a small


point. Why does not the Secretary of State suggest to the Under-Secretary some splendidly withering repartee for his reply?

Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that we are allowed two hours for this debate and that the two Front Bench speakers have occupied half of the time available. I do not complain at that, because the issues before the House are extremely complex, but the fact that half the time has already gone illustrates the ridiculous situation in which the House is now placed.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions for the Chair on how we can help to reduce the length of speeches, I shall be greatly obliged.

12.39 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: In view of what has been said, I shall try to be mercifully short. I spoke at reasonable length on Friday when my hon. Friend introduced this subject in his motion with such dramatic effect, if not always with complete accuracy on other points. In a sense, tonight's discussion is the second act of Friday's debate. I am sorry and glad that the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) was not called. I am glad because it was underlining the obvious. As I remember it, it called for an inquiry into the commercial fast breeder reactor, but we are going to have that. The inquiry has been promised, and it does not seem necessary to underline the point.
I hope that we can find a method of dealing with these documents before long. I do not know what the Secretary of State will achieve at the meeting on Tuesday, but I hope that there will be some guidance for him in these important matters.
I accept the need for a defined inquiry into the commercial fast breeder reactor, but I do not believe that it will be at all the same thing as the Windscale inquiry. It should not be forgotten that the extra reprocessing at Windscale was agreed in the first place by the Secretary of State for Energy. The inquiry was later set up as a result of the intervention of the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Windscale inquiry decision

proceeded, if not by leaps and bounds, at least in a very uneven way.
The inquiry into the fast breeder reactor is a horse—perhaps I should say reactor—of a different colour altogether. Rightly or wrongly, it has been the cornerstone of British nuclear development from the start. It seems to me that the Government are taking a risk in apparently putting the whole ultimate future of the British nuclear programme on the chance of one inquiry without clarified terms of reference. That is why I emphasise again the need for the terms of reference to be carefully thought out in advance. A great deal of thought is needed on this point in fairness to our reactor industry.
I am sorry that the amendment was not called because it would have enabled us to probe a little more the apprehension that still seems to exist over nuclear energy and the advanced technology that goes with it. There is a fear—which has been referred to again in this debate—that there is some sort of nuclear Establishment which is determined to have its own way in spite of ministerial checks and the alleged consequential risks to our people. From my experience of the industry and my knowledge of its leaders, I regard this as an extremely irrational view.
Since the early days of nuclear energy, those closely associated with it have been aware of its special nature and hazards and have developed means of controlling them to a degree that is unprecedented in any other industrial process. To my knowledge, those in the so-called nuclear Establishment, whether in the Atomic Energy Authority, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. or the Central Electricity Generating Board, are men of great public responsibility who have devoted their lives to the task of using the power of the atom for good and beneficial purposes.
As I said on Friday, most of those people would share my view of the energy future of this country and Western Europe. In the end, we shall need energy from every available source. We should certainly conserve what we have and develop all alternative energy sources, but in the end, when the fossil fuels run out, nuclear power is the only source that can give us the energy on the scale that we need to enable us to maintain a reasonable standard of life. This is a factor


of very great importance to Western Europe, where the dangers of an ultimate shortage of cheap energy are greater than any possible risk from the fast breeder reactor.
The proposals regarding disposal of radioactive waste and the suggestion in tonight's Community papers that we should look around—on a limited Community basis—for a network of sites are impractical. They would arouse enormous opposition in this country.

Mr. Hooley: And elsewhere.

Mr. Palmer: And elsewhere, as my hon. Friend says. From what my right hon. Friend said I take it that we need no assurance that proposals of this kind will be open to discussion and attempted modification by British Ministers.
One gathers from one of the other documents that the fast breeder reactor is visualised by the EEC as giving some kind of fall-back, reserve position. If advanced through the prototype commercial fast breeder reactor stage, the only justification for so doing would be that the commercial fast breeder reactor stations were the new standard nuclear stations because of the way in which they economise so greatly in the use of uranium. Unless one is prepared to accept that, it does not seem to me that one takes a single genuine step further. I therefore consider that the Community's reservations, seeing the fast breeder reactor as a kind of fall-back possibility, are ill founded and erroneous and should be opposed.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate, and I shall not attempt to take up the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), although I am a member of his excellent Select Committee, on which I have enjoyed serving. Nor shall I spend time discussing the two documents on hydrocarbons, since everything that I should wish to say has already been said. I shall focus my attention on the two documents dealing with nuclear power.
I take first Document No. R/1901 dealing with reprocessing. In my view,

the Government are right to stress that decisions in this field are for them and them alone to take in the light of the advice which they will receive from Mr. Justice Parker following the Windscale inquiry. It would be a mistake for us in Britain to think that, because the other member States of the Community will have a tighter energy situation—there is no doubt about that—over the next five or 10 years, we should in some way be stampeded by their requirements into taking decisions which it would not be wise for us in this country to take.
I draw attention, for example, to what is said at the top of page 4 of the document on reprocessing. I am worried at the idea of nuclear fuel cycle services being used as sweeteners—that is the way I should describe it—for the export of nuclear power stations. We have seen this already in the Brazilian contracts with the West Germans. We have seen the danger of it in the French contracts with the Pakistanis. We know that there are serious dangers of proliferation even if it be a matter of providing services within the European Community for irradiated fuel sent back to us to be dealt with. I am not, therefore, happy about that.
I am concerned also about the excessively sanguine attitude taken in the document towards the technology for dealing with the problem of long-lived radioactive waste. I remind the House that no proven system for dealing with this problem has yet been demonstrated. It is not good enough for the Commission to talk blithely about
permanent storage in geological formations.
That is only one of the options which the experts will have to consider.
Furthermore, there is evidence, as the Windscale inquiry revealed, that the commercial viability of the reprocessing remains to be established. That point is made in the document before us. This commercial viability will be very dependent on the scale of throughput, which may or may not be available to the operations concerned because of a reduced nuclear electricity programme in all the countries involved.
I remind the House of the danger and folly of trying to justify a large nuclear programme on the ground that we shall have a reprocessing capacity of such a scale that we must have the programme


in order to justify our original expenditure. That really would be putting the cart before the horse, and it would be an expensive mistake.
It is not as if there are no alternatives to reprocessing. As the document points out in page 9, the storage requirements for the period up to 1990 could be met by a doubling of the storage capacity currently allotted to each nuclear power station. That would not be the adoption of what is sometimes disparagingly called the throw-away nuclear fuel cycle. It would be a viable alternative that would preserve the option of reprocessing if we decided that we had no alternative to an FBR programme.
That brings me directly to the fast breeder issue, which is covered in Document No. R/1958/77. The Commission has revealed much of what I regard as muddled thinking. First, it argues that the Community must preserve the option of making the FBR commercially available in the early 1990s, when it expects that the Nine will be confronted with the notorious energy gap. However, the likelihood is that there will be no gap in the sense of an absolute shortage then or at any other time in the foreseeable future but rather that there may turn out to be a shortage of cheap liquid hydrocarbons, which is something quite different, by the turn of the century. If that materialises, it should not be filled by expensive nuclear electricity at some 30 per cent. thermal efficiency.
The document goes on to postulate a wholly unrealistic degree of dependence upon nuclear electricity within the total energy market from some 2 per cent. of total primary energy consumption in 1976 to about 10 per cent. in 1985, and perhaps 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. in the year 2000. Can anyone seriously imagine that the nuclear construction industry, to consider only that aspect, will be able to quintuple its contribution to energy supplies in seven short years and increase it by a factor of 10 in little more than 20 years? That has only to be suggested to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the position.
If the Community wants to preserve a balanced pattern of energy supply, it would be madness to go ahead with such a heavy reliance upon nuclear energy, which would preclude a significant com

mitment to alternative sources over the same period and even some valuable investment in coal. It would be an Alice-in-Wonderland way of going about things.
Even if an approximation of such a policy were to be implemented, it would guarantee the self-fulfilling prophecy that is constantly reiterated by the experts that all other new energy sources will contribute only about 5 per cent. of the total by the year 2000. The argument that will be used is that the constraints on the uranium supply—those who put this case must be scrupulous about stating their assumptions—will be based on uranium being about $30 a pound when the normal workings of the price mechanism would serve to bring on stream many more economic deposits of uranium at a higher price.
In any case, there is a gap in the Commission's own argument when it postulates at one stage the need to rush ahead with the commercial availability of the FBR in the early 1990s but admits in page 6 that at least 20 years will be needed from then to install fast reactors in sufficient numbers to improve the overall uranium utilisation.
It is not as if the liquid metal FBR is the only route forward down the nuclear path towards more efficient uranium utilisation. Here and elsewhere, the nuclear Establishment is almost obsessively committed to one form of high technology which alone is gobbling up 30 per cent. of the total research and development expenditure in the energy sector when there are alternative possibilities such as the thorium-uranium cycle, which accelerator physicists say could breed 92 per cent. of the fuel it uses and derive the 8 per cent. from the neutrons produced by high energy particle accelerators.
That is not merely my say-so but is based on a quite learned article which appeared in Nature of 1st December 1977. The article states:
the thorium-uranium cycle … which, at least according to its growing band of advocates, avoids the tremendous power density of the fast breeder core … which reduces the problem of the long-lived wastes like americum and curium, which protects against illegal diversion of fuel … and which with proton accelerators to 'top-up' the fissile content of the fuel rods might even avoid reprocessing altogether, has been looked at hardly at all outside some work in Canada and the U.S.


In short, there are many roads that lead to Rome in energy as in other matters. It would be a foolish group of Community Governments who committed themselves massively and irrevocably to a system fraught with dangers, as would be a massive reliance on the LMFBR with its attendant fuel cycle.
I hope that the Government will pause to encourage their Community partners to look at all the alternatives, including some of the other nuclear alternatives, and not allow the Community to frame an energy policy which will be little more than unrealistic extrapolations of energy and electricity demand over an atypical period in the recent past combined with a panic reaction on the part of EEC Governments to the Arab oil embargo of 1973–74. Even the most intelligent people, it seems, are in danger of joining a Gadarene rush into unthinking decisions which, if they are not right, we could live to regret.

12.56 a.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: I am sure that we are all encouraged by the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He and I took different views on the question of entry into the EEC. I wanted to enter Europe in order to achieve collaboration and certainly not so that we should be dragged down the road to Armageddon.
From studying two of the documents that we have in front of us tonight, we are bound to have the gravest reservations. The two documents relating to the reprocessing of irradiated fuel and to the fast breeder reactor reveal that Britain is in danger of being drawn into nuclear commitments and goals that, above everything else, would spurn the efforts of President Carter to arrest nuclear proliferation which could threaten the future of mankind.
It should surely be no part of British policy to treat with cynicism the actions of President Carter in halting the American commercial fast breeder programme and deferring indefinitely the commercial reprocessing of plutonium produced in the United States. Both documents before us implicitly scoff at the unilateral and approved action taken by President Carter. The document on reprocessing has the specific aim of bringing about a

convergence of the interests of promoters and users
but of
linking their action with that of the Community itself.
I regard that as a complete affront to American policy.
The fact is that the document is asking us first to participate in setting up a European committee which will have a strategy on reprocessing achieved by procuring a revolting miscegenation of the nuclear and electricity industries. This is just the sort of marriage which at all costs should be avoided. We do not want to have the nuclear and electricity industries as bedfellows. Given the dangers, the hazards and the alternatives, it should be seen that it is no part of Britain's duty to encourage the European nuclear industry to seduce and subjugate the electrical industry and to allow the Community strategy to be determined by the misshapen partnership so produced.
The only explanation as to why these documents so brutally ignore President Carter's plea is that there appears to be a belief that America, with its fuel resources and uranium supplies, is proffering a policy which is not noble but selfish, one which poses not the selfless view but a view that is inappropriate to the European situation, with Europe being faced with the possibility of an energy gap and an uncertain uranium supply.
Therefore, why, before running helter-skelter down this road to reprocessing, does not the Community test and explore the clear offer by President Carter that the United States is ready to increase its production capacity for enriched uranium to provide an adequate and timely supply of nuclear fuel for foreign needs?
The appointment of the proposed committee, with its suggested terms of reference, would mean that if Britain participated it would be turning its back upon the United States offer. If the committee's terms of reference showed any awareness of the Carter alternative, one would be ready to take a different attitude to our involvement in such a committee. Certainly, nothing in the document persuades me that in this or in any other respect the terms of reference have been thought through.
It is difficult not to believe that the reason for the refusal by the Commission to face up to the real hazards of proliferation, which President Carter has pinpointed and which are linked with reprocessing, can be found in the Secretary's of State's explanatory memorandum, which states:
The communication also refers to nonproliferation, which is a subject a number of member States believe to be outside the Commission's competence.
That is a cryptic sentence. Does the Secretary of State mean that France, which is going ahead to sell a reprocessing plant to Pakistan, is determined to allow no intervention or inquiry, even elliptically, into its military nuclear programme and that it prefers to insist that nonproliferation is outside the Commission's competence and cannot, therefore, be raised? This country should not be subservient to such French Government arrogance.
It is nonsense to enter a committee which will deal with reprocessing but ignore proliferation and the American efforts to arrest it. It would be wiser to take action that would respond to the action of the French workers and their unions at Cap La Hague who, being aware of the dangers, are protesting that they do not wish to be involved in the reprocessing of overseas fuel.
I turn to the second document on fast breeders. How can we subscribe to an invitation to endorse the proposal that the Commision should ask the Council to agree that the demonstration of fast breeder technology by industry should continue without interruption? Such a suggestion flies in the face of the opinion which was expressed by both sides of the House on Friday. From what the Secretary of State has said, I am sure that it is a view with which he cannot agree. I am sure that he will stress the need for our own preliminary inquiries.
The House is indebted to the Secretary of State for having made it unequivocally clear that there can be no question of allowing our fate to be determined by what appears to be an attempt to preempt the delicate and dangerous decisions which we shall have to make. The manner in which the Secretary of State expressed his view and reservations means that when he goes to the meeting next week the House will expect him to resist

any attempt to hustle this country into a plutonium economy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I should like to call four other hon. Members to take part in the debate. If they take five minutes each, I shall be able to accommodate them.

1.4 p.m.

Mr. George Thomson: I spoke during the debate on Friday, but a study of the document on the Community plan of action for dealing with radio active wastes has made me even more concerned than I was then. I wonder whether the ordinary people of the United Kingdom will ever hear of this debate. It is late at night and I doubt whether the subject will be properly reported in the daily newspapers, either tomorrow or on Friday. The debate should be reported, because this is a vital matter.
The explanatory memorandum states:
managing and storing radioactive waste to ensure the safety of the public and protection of the environment is one of the major problems in developing nuclear energy.
I agree with that. We would all agree with it. On the same page, it is stated:
Legislation might be required to set up disposal sites.
I hope that it will be required so that this House will be able to debate the matter.
I agree with the explanatory memorandum's statement on page 2 that
the political, social and environmental implications of the Commission's proposal that one country should be the repository for another Member State's radioactive waste are of such importance that the most careful studies are required before this proposal can be given further consideration.
As hon. Members who were here will recall, on Friday I was particularly concerned about test borings in South-West Scotland. I was afraid, and remain afraid, that those borings, if they prove satisfactory, will eventually be used as an excuse for setting up a nuclear waste repository in our country. I put the point again that the Scottish people do not control their own land. It is this House and the Government in Whitehall who do so at the moment.
I do not want to see the periphery of Europe used for the network of storage sites that is spoken of in the document. If we have no control in face of the


United Kingdom Government, what control can we hope to have in face of the faceless bureaucrats of the EEC? Only Scottish independence can save us from this fate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Hon. Members may shout "Rubbish" and screw up their faces as much as they like, but this is the truth of the matter and it is a truth that will come home to the people of Scotland.
We are told on page 13 of the document that efficacious information is essential. Who is to provide the information and who is to guarantee its truth? We have already seen the smooth men who come down with their smooth faces to tell us in South-West Scotland what we are to think on this matter, and we have judged on them.
I agree that the work in South-West Scotland is at the moment research and that would be acceptable if we could be sure that it would stop at that. But how can we be sure that that is the case? Assurances even from the right hon. Gentleman now cannot guarantee us in the future, because Governments change and we might have an iron Government coming in. I therefore say to the House and the Community that we in the south-west of Scotland will simply not have it, now or ever.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) intends, I am sure, to give a practical demonstration of what he considers to be a reasonable length of speech.

1.8 a.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy: We heard with interest what the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) said about South-West Scotland. What worries me is that if members of the Scottish National Party make speeches in Caithness they are likely to take an entirely different view of the whole nuclear debate. I am aware of the debate in that part of Scotland. It is time that the SNP began to speak with one voice on this very important issue.

Mr. Thompson: I speak with one voice.

Mr. Hardy: I shall not indulge in an argument with the hon. Gentleman.
So far, the debate has concentrated, seriously and properly, on the nuclear aspects. There are many documents before us, but I want specifically to refer to Document No. 2348/77 dealing with consumption levels. According to the document, the Western European countries consumed more energy in 1976 than they did in 1975—and that despite the throes of the recession by which OECD countries were affected. This suggests to me that, if the efforts of all parties in Western Europe are successful in taking us out of the recession, we shall find the Western world requiring more energy in a few years' time than it does today.
My right hon. Friend is right to exercise caution and ensure that there is a public debate on nuclear policy. That is essential. Debate is better than uproar. But the fact remains that the ordinary people of the Western world and this country in particular want to enjoy a higher standard of life and expect their elected politicians to provide them with it. The people in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) want to enjoy tomorrow the same sort of improved standard of living that he enjoys today. Therefore, it behoves politicians today to ensure that the nuclear option remains open.
Caution—yes; but certainty of improved living standards is essential. That is why I believe that Document No. R/2348/77 needs to be considered along with the information provided in the other documents.
This is an excessively short debate. That ought to be the subject of consideration among those responsible for organising the business of the House. They might like to try to provide information about one or two other items in the documents. For example, in Document No. R/1955/77 I see three particular projects listed for support. Application 49/77 is a proposal from David Brown Vosper (Offshore) Limited to save gas. Application 06/77 is an application from British Petroleum on secondary recovery—a very important matter which is recommended for support. Application 39/77, again from BP, which I think can be included in the public sector, deals with through-flow-line technology to ensure at least environmental protection in offshore activity. They deserve the consideration of the House.
I regret that we do not have time to consider these important matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) certainly teaches precept by example. He has taken exactly three minutes.

1.11 a.m.

Mr. John Biffen: The Secretary of State, in a rather disarming and felicitous fashion, said that he was going to Brussels next week and that he would like to be reinforced by the opinions which would be expressed in the House. I gladly take part in that teach-in.
There are three points that I should like the Secretary of State to convey to his colleagues in the Council of Ministers. The first is that in the decision-taking processes concerning energy, which is now so fundamental to the development of society and of increasing public concern, authority must be seen to be retained and ultimately to reside in this House. The right hon. Gentleman will be in Brussels as a representative of this House in the Council of Ministers and will be anxious, I hope, to use the mechanisms of this House as the democratic and legislative basis in the Community decision-taking process. I think that that is a view that he can offer courteously and, I hope, persuasively to his colleagues.
Secondly—this point arises from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman)—the energy situation in the United Kingdom is substantially different from that in other Community countries. It may be a matter of some irritation. The same seems to be true of fisheries and of other areas of public debate within the Community. We delude ourselves, however, if we deny that there are sharply differing characteristics about our foreseeable energy resources and the demands that are likely to be made upon them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton said, it means that we are not in the same tight energy situation as a number of Continental European countries. As a consequence, even where there are collaborative projects, including the nuclear field, the time scales on which we shall be thinking are quite likely to be somewhat different from the time scales on which our prospective partners are thinking.
The conclusion that I draw from this is that the most likely productive development of policy in respect of energy within the Community is the clear establishment of what are the characteristics of the policies of national Governments, and then to see what extent those can fit within the complementary framework of the alliance that is constituted within the European Community.
The third point that I hope the Secretary of State will convey—I say that because I think there is an element of bipartisanship in this debate—is that the Commission documents are redolent with emphasis upon a nuclear option which is profoundly repugnant to Members of this House. None of us denies that nuclear energy is already making, and certainly will continue to have to make, a very major contribution to our total energy supplies. But there is a startling imperative which runs through the Commission documents. I prefer the words
But at my back I always hear
Times winged chariot hurrying near.
in the charming context of Herrick addressing his mistress rather than the Commission addressing the Council of Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman might like to draw their attention to that analogy if the evening gets rather long and tedious.
The desire for public debate, participation and persuasion, which lies at the heart of the democratic process, is challenged by the insistence on speed, which will ensure that decisions are taken of such a magnitude that they cannot then be aborted in the light of subsequent evidence and revised judgment. Those making the decisions are those who today exercise power, and they are unwilling to share that power more widely. Therefore, I hope that when he goes to Brussels the Secretary of State will be able to persuade his ministerial colleagues in the Council that there is genuine apprehension in this country along the lines I have just indicated but that we do not believe that such apprehension is in any way inconsistent with the fraternal working of the Community.

1.16 a.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Because of the time, I shall concentrate on one particular subject, which follows on very well from what the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said. The real


reason why Europe has such a protest movement about nuclear power, and Britain has the nucleus of one, is that Europe has already committed itself totally to the nuclear option. All the documents that I read—and the documents before us are not that much different from others we have read before—lead one to that view.
I should like to show how difficult is the closing of the circle on the nuclear option and how far Europe, despite concentrating on the matter for a long time, is from closing that circle. The articles that I read in various newspapers show that the waste disposal scenario is no nearer completion than it was many years ago. It was said 15 years or so ago that the answer was to glassify the waste, to drill great holes in South-West Scotland or some other granite outcrop, such as Cornwall, put the waste in a steel container, place the container 400ft. or 500ft. below the surface and then pour cement on top. The industry told us at the time that it was possible to glassify the waste in large lumps, and it went as far as doing it with pellets.
I understand that no real progress has been made since. In my county, tests are being carried out to discover the heat dissipation characteristics of granite. Such fundamental research has not been done, though we are entering the third decade of nuclear technology.
Unless the circle is closed, there will be a continuing build-up of opposition in this country. There is no doubt that Europe is on the verge of opposition building up to the extent that the nuclear option, stated in its papers to be the clear and only solution to all its problems, will be overrun by public opinion. This country has not taken that risk so far. We have controlled the whole matter much better. We have been much slower in going into it and there have been more public inquiries and consultation.
I ask the Minister to ask the people who have control of the research budgets in Europe and this country greatly to increase the percentage spent on closing the waste disposal circle. If that problem cannot be solved, public opposition will continue to grow and the whole industry will one day be flattened by a steamroller.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The logic of these documents is quite shattering in its naivety and simplicity. It is that oil is finite, outside our control, highly expensive and may become more expensive. The salvation, therefore, is in nuclear power. Uranium is also outside our control and may become scarce. The fast breeder reactor is therefore the answer. That is the logic of these energy documents.
The way in which some of the difficulties of nuclear power and the fast breeder reactor are treated is quite staggering. I refer to Document No. A/1907/77, page 4, where, in speaking about the problems of radioactive waste, it says that
the very long-term radiological risks (future generations) will arise mainly from certain long-lived radioactive wastes. Programmes in progress point to the existence of promising solutions for the isolation of these wastes from the biosphere"—
ignoring completely that there is absolutely no concensus among experts as to exactly how these wastes shall be dealt with, where they shall be put and what shall be done with them.
A similar point arises in regard to the dangers of terrorism. On page 5 of the same document, it is stated that
The risk of plutonium being used for purposes other than that of a reactor fuel can be overcome by adequate and effective measures relating to the supervision of end-use and physical protection"—
just like that; no difficulty whatsoever.
My main point, however, relates to the very casual and contemptuous rejection of alternative renewable sources of energy. I refer specifically to Document No. R /1958/77, page 2, where it says that
As far as other new energy sources are concerned (solar, geothermal, etc.), their contribution up to the end of the century, though useful, cannot be considered very significant (about 5 per cent.).
That is it in regard to the alternative sources. It seems to ignore the fact that, after 30 years and billions of pounds of expenditure on scientific and engineering research into nuclear power, that source of energy is giving us only 2·1 per cent. now. The alternative renewable sources have a better track record than nuclear power by any reckoning.
What is extraordinary about this dismissal of alternative renewable sources is


that in France, for example, some very advanced studies are being made of solar power. In Italy there are quite important sources of geothermal power. Denmark is extremely interested in wind power. In the United Kingdom we are investing money in wave and tidal power. In certain countries of the EEC there are very considerable potentialities for hydroelectric power. These sources are there and are being explored. People are taking more and more interest in them.
Despite this, these documents go blithely ahead and, as I said at the beginning of my speech, their simple and naive logic is that, as oil is finite and there is not enough uranium, the answer must be the fast breeder reactor.
I ask my right hon. Friend, when he goes to Brussels next Tuesday, to point out to the Commission that these alternative sources have enormous potential. If one-tenth of the effort in money, time and scientific and engineering manpower were to be devoted to them in the next 20 years, they would show a far better and far safer return to mankind than anything we have had yet from nuclear power.

1.24 a.m.

Mr. Peter Rost: In the few minutes left before we have to conclude the debate, I shall refer to only two points. I was rather disappointed that the Secretary of State appeared to take a rather too negative line on the proposals in the documents. We should try to get together a little more on collaborative research and development. That is very much the fundamental issue in these documents.
If the Secretary of State is genuine in his wish to find long-term solutions for the energy problems, including the nuclear and the fast breeder option, surely he should not be saying that, because we have not made up our minds in this country whether to do it, we really cannot get involved with collaborative research and development in Europe. It should be the other way round. We should welcome that there are opportunities to do it perhaps more quickly, more safely and at less cost if we get together on it. After all, we are spending £60 million a year now on fast breeder research and development. Why should we not be getting together on it and trying to do it in a more sensible way?
The same applies to the research and development of waste disposal and to reprocessing. We should be getting together to try to solve these problems. A more constructive approach from the Secretary of State in Europe might be more helpful than the impression that we have had tonight.
My second point relates to the document on the energy mix for 1985. The EEC says quite clearly that although it is three years since the first recommendations, and four years since the energy crisis, not enough has been done to get energy conservation moving. That criticism is clearly made.
I therefore ask the Secretary of State what we have done to pull our weight and to play our part in the genuine consensus in Europe that we should be doing more in this direction.

1.26 a.m.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: This time of night is all too familiar for those of us who take an interest in energy matters. It is a tragedy and nothing short of a travesty, that one cannot do other than make speeches at breakneck speed in order to try to impart briefly our expertise towards the Secretary of State as he tries to ensure that EEC energy policy develops.
The documents have revealed a widely varying series of important issues. It is a very great tragedy that we have to debate all these energy subjects which are embraced under one heading and at such a late hour. These subjects are of vital importance, and I hope that the Secretary of State will let it be known to his colleagues in the Cabinet—we shall do so—that we want more time to discuss these matters, because they are of critical importance.
The particular subject that we are debating tonight plays a central part in the national economy and in national planning, not only in our own country but in the EEC. I want to address my brief remarks to the consultative document No. R/2347/77, but that does not mean that I am ignoring the importance of the nuclear argument which has been made tonight. However, that argument, has occupied most of the comments made during the debate and we widely debated that subject last Friday at some length.
It was a great pity that Document No. R/2347 was not discussed at the Council of Energy Ministers on 25th October, because the Secretary of State indicated in his memorandum to the House that it would be discussed. This discussion paper underlines an aspect that gives real cause for disquiet and confirms that the Government—perhaps not alone of Governments—are complacent on certain energy matters in Europe.
The document states that the present picture is one of a "fairly calm energy market" in the Community. That may be true at the moment, but when that kind of picture is presented I have the fear that we may well find that many Ministers in the EEC have decided they do not want to rock the boat by trying to shape public opinion to accept some of the harsher measures if we are to avoid the energy gap which is prophesied in some energy quarters in the next 25 or 30 years.
It may be that Ministers are members either of minority Governments or of coalition Administrations and are conscientiously and anxiously looking over their shoulders at domestic public opinion and impending elections. Fortunately, however, the paper goes on to point out that this "calm" picture should not cause the basic medium and long-term problems to be overlooked. They may well be being overlooked because the document was not discussed at the Council. I should like to know why it was not discussed at the meeting on 25th October when the Secretary of State had indicated in his memorandum that it would be discussed.
I draw the attention of the House to two aspects. First, the first half of 1977 shows increased consumption of 2·5 per cent. compared with the same period in 1976 and draws into question the effectiveness of the EEC energy savings policy. Second, I turn to the potential problems with Community nuclear programmes. During the first six months of 1977 there was a marked increase in the production of nuclear energy to the tune of 26 per cent. That is a very significant figure. The trend is there both in the Community and in our own national requirements for nuclear power.
In the United Kingdom, nuclear demand, given the continuity of a 3 per cent. annual growth rate, must grow very swiftly during the years leading to the end of this century and certainly beyond. If the EEC and our Government fail to recognise the importance of nuclear power, they must, in effect, be saying that they accept either a lower annual growth rate of economic development or a return to large-scale imports of fossil fuels. Perhaps the Secretary of State will let us know his views on this matter.
I only hope that the nuclear hearings which began last week in Brussels will make an important contribution to diminishing some of the fears that many hon. Members have justifiably mentioned, both on Friday and again today. They are important hearings, and I hope that they will make a genuine contribution to allay some of our fears.
The second aspect of Document No. R/2347, which the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) highlighted and which I find of enormous significance, is the seventh paragraph, where President Carter's energy policy guidelines are discussed. The success or failure of the United States to reduce its dependence on oil imports is critical, and one can only applaud President Carter for the way he has sought to shape American public opinion—never an enviable undertaking—to an understanding of the principal problem. But the very high import figure—some 9 million barrels of oil per day—is very disturbing, and almost everything in this sector hangs on the United States cutting its oil imports. If it cannot do it, we are all done for in Western industrialised societies.
I turn to Document No. R/1959, which, amongst other aspects, touches on the Commission's desire to remove 140 million tons from refining capacity. Although the whole question of refining and distillation surplus in Europe is an important subject as we approach the 1980s, I think it very doubtful that we shall hear much more about it for some time. Perhaps the Secretary of State will refer to this. The figures are questionable. Voluntary action by oil companies brings into account anti-trust and competition law reasons, and I cannot see the oil industry agreeing to take this action in the near future. The problems in the Continental countries are different from our


own. Whereas we have a refining surplus, we do not have a cat-cracking surplus, because of the different nature of the oil in the North Sea and the problems facing imports from OPEC countries.
The document also includes member States' forecasting of future energy production and consumption up to 1985. It is this aspect to which I want to turn for a few concluding minutes. The purpose of the document is to highlight some shortcomings in national programmes. Our own energy programme has considerable shortcomings which are fast emerging.
The argument that nuclear power can be replaced by benign sources before the year 2000 is an argument which, alas, the realist has to ignore. In an ideal world it might be possible, but the slowness of research and development programmes, both here and in the rest of the Community, shows that to expect conventional power stations to be generating electricity by non-conventional sources is stretching the imagination. I, who am a devotee of the Severn Barrage principle, realise that the feasibility project could take years before the Government were in a position to make a proper decision.
The danger signs are there for the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State must make some all-important decisions. He has spent far too long in avoiding many of them. He knows that coal production is declining annually. He knows that North Sea oil production has a limit. He knows that the demand for gas will not diminish. He knows that Britain's nuclear capacity must expand. Yet all that seems to happen is that we get more committees and working parties.
The principle of working parties and committees may be of benefit. but it is clear for all to see that while most of the committees or working parties may have the best brains summoned and could well be a modest contribution to open government, they do not seem to meet too often once they have been created.
We have the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation in Industry and Commerce, which has met only four times. We have the Chief Scientist's Requirements Board, which has met only three times in 1977. We have the Combined Heat and Power Group, which has met only three times. The Energy Thrift Committee has not met at all. MISER,

which is the Methodology of Industrial Sector Energy Requirements, met in October.
I am sorry that Government Ministers are over-anxious about the statistics, but they must face up to the fact that they are there. This seems to me to be one gigantic public relations hoax.
I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us that he recognises the importance of energy conservation, and I hope that sometime in the future he will speak at length on the importance of the EEC combining on energy policy and on the importance of restoring Britain's reputation in Europe.

1.37 a.m.

Mr. Benn: I sympathise with the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane), who obviously wanted to make political points. He had to shorten them so that they appeared less credible than perhaps they would have done had he made them at length.
I was asked why the papers that we thought would be discussed at the last meeting were not dealt with. They were not reached because of other business which lasted so long. I was also asked about the famous unpublished document, and one hon. Member referred to it as my document. It was not my document. It was a Commission working paper, and it was not published because the Commission did not want it to be published.
On the nuclear arguments, there was not much division on the question of whether they should be nuclear power. Not one hon. Member said that we should abandon it or that benign sources should replace it. One hon. Member made the point that, if one is continually put under artificial pressure to make decisions, one is prevented from giving any measure of thought to the matter. If I had given the impression that I was pointing my finger at others, I can only say that I was not. All over the world—in the United States, Sweden and other countries as well as the EEC—there is anxiety about the way in which nuclear decisions are handled.
I make no apology for the publication of information from independent inquiries. The attitude adopted towards dissenters—whether they are regarded as subversives or as serious people—and the ministerial responsibilities and decisions and hearings that are not manipulated


are matters to be considered. I do not want to hold a hearing in order to brainwash someone who does not agree with me. These are the factors in determining whether nuclear policy will be acceptable. "More haste, less speed" is a saying that might be considered in this context.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North-East (Mr. Palmer) was less than just on Windscale. Two years ago I specially asked the Select Committee to look at Windscale. My hon. Friend took the view that it was not right to do so. But 18 months before the inquiry was launched I asked him whether the Select Committee could find time to look at the reprocessing problem. To say tonight that I am shielding behind the Secretary of State for the Environment is doing me less than justice.

Mr. Palmer: On that occasion I told the Secretary of State that if he wrote to the Select Committee I would put his letter before it. He did not write.

Mr. Benn: My recollection was that my hon. Friend felt that this was not a subject that was appropriate for discussion. He is slightly less than just in suggesting that I prevented the matter from being raised in the Select Committee.
It is a mistake to link waste disposal with Scottish nationalism. Scottish waste also must go somewhere, and it might be pushed in the direction of the constituency of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson). I cannot possibly allow Community waste to be put here by a Community decision without the House determining the matter for itself.
As for conservation, I can say no more than that there will be a statement next week, and I think the House agrees that it will be a statement of some importance.
This has been a late debate, but it has been a full and helpful one from my point of view because every hon. Member who has taken part has entered into the general spirit of being co-operative and helpful in discussing the harmonisation and sharing of costs but in not wishing to yield too much in terms of the basic decision, not from Britain to the Community but from democratic to bureaucratic control. That has been the spirit of this debate.
I said on an earlier occasion that I would send the Hansard report of our proceedings to Community members, and I was rebuked for that suggestion, but I do not think it would be a bad thing if that could be done on this occasion in time for next week when we meet the other EEC Ministers. They would then know that when contributions are made in this House on these EEC subjects they are not made in any party or anti-European spirit but are aimed at putting forward the views of the House of Commons, at whatever hour that may occur. They will then learn that these energy matters are quite properly taken very seriously indeed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/1955/77, R/1959/77, R/ 2347/77, R/2348/77 and R/2594/77 on Energy Policy and R/1901/77, R/1956/77 and R/ 1958/77 on Nuclear Energy.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Motion made,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), in their Fifth Report, in the last Session of Parliament, on Computer-based Indexing for the Library.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — ROBERT EDMUNDS (MOBILITY ALLOWANCE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]

1.41 a.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am grateful to the Minister for staying so late for this debate, which, as he will appreciate, is of some importance both in principle and to the individual concerned.
The subject of the debate is the case of Robert Edmunds, a 12-year-old boy who has a considerable medical disadvantage since he suffers from a disease known as Down's syndrome and a number of other mental afflictions.
The boy's parents have throughout the 12 years of his life bestowed upon him all the love and affection that parents


can give to a child with those problems and disadvantages. They have made immense sacrifices for him. They are a family of limited means, as are many families suffering similar circumstances. The results of this case will affect not only the family in question but hundreds of other families with similar problems.
Robert's parents applied on his behalf for a mobility allowance in 1976. Their first application was turned down and they appealed to a medical tribunal. That body concluded that the boy should be given a mobility allowance. However, the Department appealed against that decision and asked for leave to appeal. The medical tribunal again considered that the boy was entitled to the mobility allowance, and the Secretary of State decided to appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner.
Having won their case before the medical tribunal in March 1977, the boy's parents now find themselves still awaiting an appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner. That appeal will be held on 16th December. I suppose that they are lucky in being afforded such a date, because the delay in their case is less than the current average in cases that go before the commission. I presume that the Department has done its best to see that the case is heard as quickly as possible, and I am grateful to the Department on that ground.
There are three basic points of principle with which I wish to deal. The first relates to the basic problems of administering appeals of this nature. I have been told by the Secretary of State that the average delay in the hearing of appeals by the commissioner is seven and a half months. I have received letters from those involved in similar cases, and some people have had to wait as long as nine months for appeals to be heard. I hope that, as a substantial increase in the time lag has taken place over the last two years, administrative action will be taken to speed up these appeals.
I hope that everyone will recognise the ghastly depression that one suffers when one has won an appeal to a medical tribunal and then suddenly receives a letter saying that one will not receive the allowance and must wait for yet another appeal before the National Insurance

Commissioner. I hope that that delay will be looked into.
In this case, the medical appeal tribunal found in favour of Robert on 24th March. The Department had three months in which to appeal. In fact, the solicitors for Robert received the appeal three days before the three months expired. On 12th July the medical appeal tribunal again found in favour of Robert. The Department had 21 days in which to appeal. Some of its appeal documents were dated the day before the 21 days had expired and others were dated three days afterwards. On 6th September the Department was given leave to appeal, and it then took it seven weeks to lodge its appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner. There has, therefore, been a total of five to six months' delay due to the lack of speed taken by the Department in making and lodging its appeals. I hope that the Minister will examine this matter carefully to see whether in any other such cases the procedure could be speeded up.
I want also to raise a point about a matter for which the Minister is not responsible and which is the responsibility of another Department—that is, the whole question of legal aid in such cases. In the case of Robert, to put the case to the medical tribunal and to argue against the Department before the commissioner, the estimated legal costs are in excess of £500. There was no way in which Robert's parents could have found that money. They are fortunate that a local solicitor has given his services totally free, and a barrister is doing the same for the appeal to the commissioner.
In 1974 the Advisory Committee on Legal Aid recommended that legal aid should be given in such cases. Recently, the Attorney-General told me in reply to a Question that, while the Government were sympathetic to this recommendation, they considered that it was not opportune now due to the limitations on public expenditure. It is a considerable injustice that, when a Government department—doubtless for perfectly valid reasons—decides to make an appeal and has its presentation and preparation of its case for that appeal done at the expense of the taxpayer, the parents of a handicapped child of extremely limited means should have no form of legal aid whatsoever.
Even if one accepted the principle that where a Government Department decided to make an appeal against an award given to a handicapped person legal aid should be provided to the person concerned, the costs would be extremely small. The number of cases heard by medical tribunals each year is about 3,000, and only a handful are heard by the commissioner, so the total cost would be extremely small although the hardship involved is not. Probably there is a number of cases that do not go to appeal because parents without legal advice are bewildered and frightened of the whole process. That should cause the House considerable concern. In such cases it is essential that legal aid should be made available.
There is another principle involved, and that is of the case itself. I wish to bring to the attention of the House the basic arguments that have been used. I cannot do better than give the House the views that were expressed by the medical appeal tribunal when, in March, it pronounced in favour of Robert's obtaining a mobility allowance. I quote:
We agree that the boy is suffering from mongolism a condition which is due to faulty genetic inheritance and can therefore be classified as a physical disorder. We accept the evidence that while he walks for some yards he is liable to run, stop, lie down and refuse to go further; this reaction which seriously impairs mobility is directly due to the physical condition of mongolism.
We therefore conclude in the light of the available evidence that Robert Edmunds is virtually unable to walk because of physical disablement. We further find that such virtual inability to walk is likely to persist for a period in excess of 12 months from 24th November 1976 and will probably persist until pensionable age, or the duration of life whichever is the shorter. We also find that he will have direct benefit from receipt of the allowance.
The Minister sought leave to appeal against that, but the medical appeal tribunal said:
The submission of the Secretary of State seeks to separate the claimant's mental state from the physical condition to which that mental state is directly due. This cannot be accepted because the mental state is the direct consequence of the physical malformation of a particular chromosome.
Since the claimant's condition is such that he cannot walk without danger to himself because he has no control over his movements and is also such that the time or distance for which he will walk is predictable only in that it is severely limited. The claimant is virtually unable to walk because of physical disablement.

We see no reason to believe that there was any factor contributing to the claimant's inability to walk other than the physical disability which prevents the co-ordination of mind and body.
The basis of the Minister's appeal, according to the document that he has put in, is:
The Secretary of State submits that a person who is physically able to walk but does not make effective use of his walking ability, or uses it in a bizarre or dangerous manner, because of mental limitation or disorder, cannot be said to be unable or virtually unable to walk.
If that principle were maintained at the appeal, if the appeal were successful and the Government decided to apply it to people in similar circumstances to Robert, it would be a real and grave injustice.
I concede that someone with this form of mental disorder may not be entitled to a mobility allowance. Many can walk long distances and, under the present limitations, do not deserve the allowance. But Robert has rarely, if ever, walked more than 30 yards, and it can be shown by medical evidence that he is virtually unable to walk.
I also concede that there are cases of mental disability in which the allowance would be of no purpose because the nature of the disability is such that the person would not gain any benefit from being mobile. But the medical tribunal found that Robert would benefit from mobility.
I hope that the Government will concede the principle that, if someone is virtually unable to walk as a result of a mental disorder and it can be shown that he would benefit from having mobility, he will have the same entitlement to mobility allowance as someone suffering from a physical infirmity. This is a vital principle to concede.
I hope that the Minister who is to reply to the debate will be able to answer some of the questions that I put in my letter to the Secretary of State. I am doubly concerned about the Minister's appeal succeeding. There are a substantial number of children suffering from this complaint who are less disabled than Robert but who are receiving the mobility allowance—I know of three cases personally—and they may lose it.
If the appeal does not succeed, I hope that the Minister can assure me that he will do everything possible to contact the


many other cases that are similar to Robert's who have been turned down for mobility allowance and also the parents who have not yet applied for the allowance.
I hope also that the Minister will be able to say—this is my main hope tonight—that if Robert's case succeeds, that is, from Robert's point of view, there is no need for amending legislation, but that if the object of the Department is to establish the legal position, and the legal position is that somebody such as Robert who, by reason of mental disorder, is unable to walk and would benefit from the mobility allowance is prevented from so doing, the Government will introduce amending legislation at an early date.
Always in a case such as this there tends to be the suggestion that criticism of the Minister or the Department is intended. That is not my objective. Most hon. Members on both sides want to improve the lot of the disabled. I know that the present Secretary of State, for personal reasons and his motivations in politics, shares that wish. The same is true of the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply tonight. At no stage have I suggested that they want to limit help in cases of this kind because of any hostility at any point.
All of us want to see such people have the best possible treatment. But because of a fault in the law, perhaps, or a fault in circumstances, we have a situation here in which a boy—both he and his parents have suffered enough already—who deserves the benefit of the Government's innovation of the mobility allowance will not receive that benefit, unless the Government fail in their appeal to the commissioner or, if they succeed, they bring in amending legislation.
I hope that those three basic points of principle will be met—improved administrative machinery, providing legal aid to such people, and amending legislation to provide benefit to people such as Robert Edmunds. I look forward to favourable answers from the Minister.

1.56 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) for this opportunity to address the House on a matter

of such importance. This is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has initiated an important debate on the problems of disabled people. As on the earlier occasion, he has argued his case with courtesy, with sincerity and with force.
The right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the case of Robert Edmunds which is now before the National Insurance Commissioner. While I have no wish to intrude into the legal processes, I want to make my position clear from the outset. I shall be delighted if the National Insurance Commissioner finds in favour of Robert Edmunds. Moreover, if he does find in Robert's favour my Department will pay all the arrears from the earliest due date.
The right hon. Gentleman knows of my very close involvement in the introduction of mobility allowance, which has been of enormous help to tens of thousands of severely disabled people who previously received no outdoor mobility help at all. Indeed, we are now in the process of more than quintupling my Department's expenditure on mobility for the disabled compared with what was provided under the previous Administration.
With that credential let me, therefore, make plain that I should have wanted no part in the making of any scheme for mobility help which specifically excluded cases of Down's syndrome. Yet the false impression has been given that such cases are excluded. I must strongly emphasise, therefore, that our present scheme does not exclude cases of Down's syndrome. In fact, the mobility allowance scheme is not in any way related to particular diagnostic groups. Entitlement is based on inability to walk, and there certainly are people suffering from Down's syndrome who have already established title to the allowance.
Some of the news coverage of the case of Robert Edmunds reveals serious misconceptions about the help available to the families of disabled children. There are misconceptions about the rules of entitlement to the mobility allowance. There are misconceptions about why a reference was made to the National Insurance Commissioner and about how the reference will be considered. These are misconceptions which I must now seek to correct.
Mobility allowance is payable to those who can show that they are suffering from physical disablement such that they are unable or virtually unable to walk. The right hon. Gentleman is reported in The Times of 5th December as saying that the scheme needs amending so that
mentally handicapped people who cannot walk are treated like those with a physical handicap that prevents walking".
This gives wide currency to a very serious misconception indeed. The allowance was always intended for anyone who cannot walk from whatever cause. It is available just as much to the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped as to other peope who are unable or virtually unable to walk.
I turn now to the misconception about why the case of Robert Edmunds was referred to the Nationl Insurance Commissioner. It was to obtain a decision on an important point of law. There are 13 medical appeal tribunals sitting at over 20 centres throughout the country. These tribunals are independent adjudicating authorities, and neither the Secretary of State nor any Minister has power to intervene in their decisions. Ministers are bound by their decisions, as are the claimants who appear before them. But the interpreation of the words in the Act
unable or virtually unable to walk because of physical disablement
has led to inconsistent decisions. The reference is essential to enable the National Insurance Commissioner to clarify the meaning of the legal provisions which Parliament as a whole approved.
It is quite wrong to suggest that the Secretary of State is taking sides, when, in fact, what he is seekinkg is a clarification of the law that could be of help to many disabled people. What is sought is not a victory but a decision that can be consistently applied.
My right hon. Friend made his position clear in a letter to the right hon. Gentleman from which I quote. It reads:
I repeat that I am not trying to exclude children like Robert who suffer from Down's Syndrome from mobility allowance. The sole purpose in putting this case before the National Insurance Commissioner is to ensure uniformity, consistency and equity in the interpretation of the law throughout the country.
We are the very last people to be accused of ministerial diktat in cases of

this kind. Before my time there was no appeals machinery whatever in outdoor mobility help. Nor was there any outdoor mobility help of any kind for any disabled child. I take some pride in the fact that it was this Government who first introduced an appeals machinery in mobility help for the disabled. In so doing we diminished ministerial power. One of our main purposes in doing this was to guarantee both consistency and fairness in the operation of the scheme. Without any appeals machinery, Robert Edmunds would have been denied mobility help and would have been without any right of appeal.
I must repeat to the House that the adjudicating authorities which decide cases of this sort are independent of the Secretary of State and of my Department. But, until they are clear as to the interpretation of the law, it is impossible for them to decide claims to mobility allowance consistently and fairly throughout the country.
A further misconception is that mobility allowance is the only benefit which can help people in the position of Mr. and Mrs. Edmunds. This again is quite untrue. The attendance allowance is available to any child over the age of two years who requires frequent attention or supervision.
The higher rate allowance, which the Government have very considerably increased, now stands at £14 a week. Furthermore, I understand that this higher rate allowance is currently being paid in respect of Robert.

Mr. Peter Walker: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's argument that this action is being taken purely to establish a uniform pattern and that the Government hope that Robert will succeed in his appeal when the application to the tribunal states:
The Secretary of State submits that a person who is physically able to walk but does not make effective use of his walking ability, or uses it in a bizarre or dangerous manner, because of mental limitation or disorder, cannot be said to be unable or virtually unable to walk.
If the Secretary of State succeeds in that, he will have stopped Robert. Does the Secretary of State mean that?

Mr. Morris: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman on this point. He has quoted from a document which has now


been entirely superseded. What we are concerned with is the reference to the National Insurance Commissioner on 25th October 1977, not the reference to the medical appeal tribunal on 24th March. The quotation that the right hon. Gentleman used is from the document of 24th March.
The right hon. Gentleman may like to know that the attendance allowance is payable to almost 16,000 people suffering from Down's syndrome. Altogether there are over 250,000 people receiving the allowance, at a total cost of about £170 million. In addition, as has been pointed Out to Mrs. Edmunds, in cases of hardship involving disabled people the Family Fund may be able to assist. The Government will have contributed £12·5 million to this fund by the end of 1978. I know that the House will agree that it really does not aid the cause of disabled people to further misconceptions of the sort I have dealt with in my speech so far.
The right hon. Gentleman has asked whether, if it is shown that Robert Edmunds is not entitled to the mobility allowance as the law now stands, we can consider amending the law to include Robert Edmunds and other children like him. The answer is "Yes". Requests for changing the criteria for entitlement to the allowance can certainly be considered. The effect of widening the criteria would, of course, be to bring in more people. That in turn would further increase expenditure. I must, therefore, make the point, as my right hon. Friend did yesterday in the House, that there are many competing claims for further spending.
We are now in process of doubling in less than a year the rate of mobility allowance to £10 a week, and it is hoped that this, together with help to be provided by the new agency, motability, will provide really effective outdoor mobility for a very great number of disabled people.
I have been under considerable pressure for some time to extend the scope of the allowance in a variety of ways, and the new developments are unlikely to ease that pressure. Claims for priority have been put forward on behalf of the blind and of people suffering from epilepsy and agoraphobia. A very strong claim has also been advanced on behalf of people

who already clearly satisfy the existing medical criteria for the allowance but are precluded on grounds of age. All these competing claims must be considered, and we shall be glad to build on the new scheme as soon as we can.
It cannot be disputed that this Government have made available a very great deal of new help to the disabled. The overall value of additional cash resources already available, or pledged, for benefits for disabled people and their families amounts to about £2,000 million a year since we came into office. We want to do very much more and will do so as financial resources permit, taking into account services as well as cash benefit needs in a close and continuing scrutiny of priorities.
Meanwhile, we might all reflect that new benefits bring new problems. They sometimes not only bring much-needed assistance but also cause disappointment to those who do not qualify. New benefits must of necessity exclude people as well as include people. This is one of the penalties of breaking new ground by introducing new benefits. But the difficulties we meet at the margin of entitlement should not discourage us from trying to provide new help for those in special need. Moreover, we must not be diverted by criticism from seeking a clarification of the law to ensure that it is applied consistently and equitably.
The right hon. Gentleman has also raised the question of legal aid for appellants presenting cases to the independent adjudicating authorities under the Social Security Acts. This is, of course, a matter for the Law Officers. What I can say is that, in the view of my Department, proceedings before the independent adjudicating authorities must not be regarded as if they were adversarial proceedings before a judge.
In our view, the sole purpose of these proceedings, unlike others with which the right hon. Gentleman may be more familiar, is to establish whether the claimant has a right to a benefit which is prescribed in law and which Parliament considers he should have if he satisfies the relevant conditions. It is the duty of the independent adjudicating authorities to consider all aspects of a case before arriving at their decision, and I am confident that this is done. What is more, my right hon. Friend's letter to the right


hon. Gentleman shows that we were prepared to present the case for Robert Edmunds and to do so as strongly as we could.
The right hon. Gentleman put to me the further question of the average time taken to decide appeals by the 10 national insurance commissioners. As he was informed in reply to his recent parliamentary Question, this is estimated at about seven and a half months from the lodging of the appeal. The time has lengthened from the period of five months that was usual in 1974. This is due to an increased propensity for claimants to appeal and to the effects of EEC regulations, among other causes. With regard to avoidable delays within the Department, I shall have what the right hon. Gentleman has said very carefully considered. Meanwhile, as he will know, a hearing has been fixed on 16th December for the case we have been discussing tonight.
As I have pointed out on many previous occasions, Ministers cannot influence the decisions of the independent adjudicating authorities, and the number of cases referred on behalf of the Secretary of

State depend upon the decisions of the authorities themselves and not upon external considerations. As a matter of record, the number of cases referred, mostly cases under the Industrial Injuries Scheme, during the period in office of this Government amounts to approximately 3,000 fewer than those made during a similar time at the end of the period in office of the previous Government.
On the question of appeals, the right hon. Gentleman may recall that I legislated as a private Member in this important matter. In the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 there is provision for speeding up war pensions appeals. The right hon. Gentleman will therefore appreciate that I am ready to have fully considered all that he has said tonight about the need to do as much as we can—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eleven minutes past Two o'clock.